Densification through reduced residential space

To establish a definition of sustainability, what is first and foremost needed is to pinpoint the differences between two very similar terms: sustainability and sustainable development. While sustainability is the overall vision, sustainable development underlines the process of achieving it (Diesendorf, 2000). The UN has defined sustainable development as the effort to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987). While the 1987 definition is a highly generalised term, it has undoubtedly kickstarted several debates around relevant terminology. However, it still fails to profoundly address the multiplicity of factors and variables that come in play when talking about sustainable development (Mebratu, 1998); what and whose needs? How are these needs shaped and influenced by the nature-culture and local-global spectrums as well as the socio-political realities from which they emerged?   To tackle the first question, “what and whose needs” what is needed is simply to ask; participation and inclusion in decision-making have been identified as inherent values in empowering communities (Jenkins & Forsyth, 2010), while the equitable inclusion of communities in all facets of creation (concept, decision-making, construction) and post-creation (maintenance & management) can enhance “individual and social well-being” (Turner, 2000). Participation can therefore be a key element in “repairing the natural relationship between people and place” (Hamdi, 1995).   When it comes to understanding and situating those needs within the complex realities in which they occur, a crucial asset is empathy. Empathy signifies the ability to shift between perspectives and form emotional bonds while enhancing the cognitive capacity of processing the emotional state of the other. This “can bring significant advances to understanding sustainability challenges” (Brown et al., 2019).   Finally, to provide a more specific term for sustainable development, the 1987 UN term can be rephrased as not only the effort to meet one’s needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same, but also the effort to identify, understand and contextualise those needs, connect and empathise with the people voicing them, and ultimately challenge the status quo, whenever needed ”.     Effrosyni Roussou - DRAFT     Reference List:   Brown, K. et al. (2019) Empathy, place and identity interactions for sustainability, Global Environmental Change, 56, pp. 11-17   Diesendorf, M. (2000), ‘Sustainability and sustainable development’, in Dunphy, D. Benveniste, J. Griffiths, A. and Sutton, P. (eds.) Sustainability: The corporate challenge of the 21st century, Sydney:  Allen & Unwin, pp. 19-37   Hamdi, N. (1995) Housing without Houses: Participation, Flexibility, Enablement Warwickshire: Practical Action Publishing   Jenkins, P., Forsyth, L. (eds.). (2010) Architecture, Participation and Society. New York: Routledge   Mebratu, D. (1998) ‘Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical and conceptual review’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18(6), pp. 493–520   Turner, J.F.C. (2000) Housing by People: Towards autonomy in building environments. London: Marion Boyars Publishers Ltd   World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is a method used to estimate the overall cost of a building during its different life cycle stages, whether from cradle to grave or within a predetermined timeframe (Nucci et al., 2016; Wouterszoon Jansen et al., 2020). The Standardised Method of Life Cycle Costing (SMLCC) identifies LCC in line with the International Standard ISO 15686-5:2008 as "Methodology for the systematic economic evaluation of life cycle costs over a period of analysis, as defined in the agreed scope." (RICS, 2016). This evaluation can provide a useful breakdown of all costs associated with designing, constructing, operating, maintaining and disposing of this building (Dwaikat & Ali, 2018). Life cycle costs of an asset can be divided into two categories: (1) Initial costs, which are all the costs incurred before the occupation of the house, such as capital investment costs, purchase costs, and construction and installation costs (Goh & Sun, 2016; Kubba, 2010); (2) Future costs, which are those that occur after the occupancy phase of the dwelling. The future costs may involve operational costs, maintenance, occupancy and capital replacement (RICS, 2016). They may also include financing, resale, salvage, and end-of-life costs (Karatas & El-Rayes, 2014; Kubba, 2010; Rad et al., 2021). The costs to be included in a LCC analysis vary depending on its objective, scope and time period. Both the LCC objective and scope also determine whether the assessment will be conducted for the whole building, or for a certain building component or equipment (Liu & Qian, 2019; RICS, 2016). When LCC combines initial and future costs, it needs to consider the time value of money (Islam et al., 2015; Korpi & Ala-Risku, 2008). To do so, future costs need to be discounted to present value using what is known as "Discount Rate" (Islam et al., 2015; Korpi & Ala-Risku, 2008). LCC responds to the needs of the Architectural Engineering Construction (AEC) industry to recognise that value on the long term, as opposed to initial price, should be the focus of project financial assessments (Higham et al., 2015). LCC can be seen as a suitable management method to assess costs and available resources for housing projects, regardless of whether they are new or already exist. LCC looks beyond initial capital investment as it takes future operating and maintenance costs into account (Goh & Sun, 2016). Operating an asset over a 30-year lifespan could cost up to four times as much as the initial design and construction costs (Zanni et al., 2019). The costs associated with energy consumption often represent a large proportion of a building’s life cycle costs. For instance, the cumulative value of utility bills is almost half of the cost of a total building life cycle over a 50-year period in some countries (Ahmad & Thaheem, 2018; Inchauste et al., 2018). Prioritising initial cost reduction when selecting a design alternative, regardless of future costs, may not lead to an economically efficient building in the long run (Rad et al., 2021). LCC is a valuable appraising technique for an existing building to predict and assess "whether a project meets the client's performance requirements" (ISO, 2008). Similarly, during the design stages, LCC analysis can be applied to predict the long-term cost performance of a new building or a refurbishing project (Islam et al., 2015; RICS, 2016). Conducting LCC supports the decision-making in the design development stages has a number of benefits (Kubba, 2010). Decisions on building programme requirements, specifications, and systems can affect up to 80% of its environmental performance and operating costs (Bogenstätter, 2000; Goh & Sun, 2016). The absence of comprehensive information about the building's operational performance may result in uninformed decision-making that impacts its life cycle costs and future performance (Alsaadani & Bleil De Souza, 2018; Zanni et al., 2019). LCC can improve the selection of materials in order to reduce negative environmental impact and positively contribute to resourcing efficiency (Rad et al., 2021; Wouterszoon Jansen et al., 2020), in particular when combined with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). LCA is concerned with the environmental aspects and impacts and the use of resources throughout a product's life cycle (ISO, 2006). Together, LCC and LCA contribute to adopt more comprehensive decisions to promote the sustainability of buildings (Kim, 2014). Therefore, both are part of the requirements of some green building certificates, such as LEED (Hajare & Elwakil, 2020).     LCC can be used to compare design, material, and/or equipment alternatives to find economically compelling solutions that respond to building performance goals, such as maximising human comfort and enhancing energy efficiency (Karatas & El-Rayes, 2014; Rad et al., 2021). Such solutions may have high initial costs but would decrease recurring future cost obligations by selecting the alternative that maximises net savings (Atmaca, 2016; Kubba, 2010; Zanni et al., 2019). LCC is particularly relevant for decisions on energy efficiency measures investments for both new buildings and building retrofitting. Such investments have been argued to be a dominant factor in lowering a building's life cycle cost (Fantozzi et al., 2019; Kazem et al., 2021). The financial effectiveness of such measures on decreasing energy-related operating costs, can be investigated using LCC analysis to compare air-condition systems, glazing options, etc. (Aktacir et al., 2006; Rad et al., 2021). Thus, LCC can be seen as a risk mitigation strategy for owners and occupants to overcome challenges associated with increasing energy prices (Kubba, 2010). The price of investing in energy-efficient measures increase over time. Therefore, LCC has the potential to significantly contribute to tackling housing affordability issues by not only making design decisions based on the building's initial costs but also its impact on future costs – for example energy bills - that will be paid by occupants (Cambier et al., 2021). The input data for a LCC analysis are useful for stakeholders involved in procurement and tendering processes as well as the long-term management of built assets (Korpi & Ala-Risku, 2008). Depending on the LCC scope, these data are extracted from information on installation, operating and maintenance costs and schedules as well as the life cycle performance and the quantity of materials, components and systems, (Goh & Sun, 2016) These information is then translated into cost data along with each element life expectancy in a typical life cycle cost plan (ISO, 2008). Such a process assists the procurement decisions whether for buildings, materials, or systems and/or hiring contractors and labour, in addition to supporting future decisions when needed (RICS, 2016). All this information can be organised using Building Information Modelling (BIM) technology (Kim, 2014; RICS, 2016). BIM is used to organise and structure building information in a digital model. In some countries, it has become mandatory that any procured project by a public sector be delivered in a BIM model to make informed decisions about that project (Government, 2012). Thus, conducting LCC aligns with the adoption purposes of BIM to facilitate the communication and  transfer of building information and data among various stakeholders (Juan & Hsing, 2017; Marzouk et al., 2018). However, conducting LCC is still challenging and not widely adopted in practice. The reliability and various formats of building related-data are some of the main barriers hindering the adoption of LCCs (Goh & Sun, 2016; Islam et al., 2015; Kehily & Underwood, 2017; Zanni et al., 2019).