← Back to Publications
Abstract Related case studies Related vocabulary Blogposts Relations

Tzika, Z., & Furman, S. (2023, March). Towards integrating social and environmental sustainability in housing: Conceptualisation, measurement frameworks, and indicators. In Diaconu, A. (Ed.) Proceedings of the RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference (pp. 73-77). Pacte Social Sciences Research Centre, University Grenoble Alpes Grenoble, France.

https://www.re-dwell.eu/activities/conferences/grenoble

Posted on 08-12-2022

Authors
Photo Profile Saskia Furman
Photo Profile Zoe Tzika

social sustainability environmental sustainability sustainable measurement frameworks total quality assessment sustainable housing

Share it

icon twitter

1. Introduction

The global housing crisis is an important social, environmental, and economic issue that is increasingly affecting more households, leading to housing deprivation. Housing is a “human right” (United Nations, 1948) and a primary physiological human need, underpinning progress towards improved quality of life, health, well-being, and life satisfaction. At the same time, the climate emergency demands more ecological ways of living that vastly reduce energy in order to achieve the European Commission’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 (European Commission, 2020). The current lack of adequate sustainable housing can be addressed by employing good practices throughout the design and construction of new housing, alongside drastic maintenance of existing buildings and neighbourhoods via regeneration, reuse and retrofit. The importance of involving communities in the decision-making process, by communicating lived experiences and realities, has been highlighted as a key factor to obtaining more equitable and socially just results (Dempsey et al., 2011). There is a demand for further empirical housing research to better understand the housing conditions of individuals and communities, subsequently improving the failings of housing.

 

2. Methodology

This research explores the meaning of sustainability in housing, to better understand the potential to address current inequalities. Social and environmental sustainability were explored under a broadly constructivist and critical paradigm, not only to challenge their separation, but also to recast the entire relationship between them. Sustainability was first analysed as a theoretical concept, followed by its practical application. In the first part, a literature review was conducted concerning social and environmental sustainability in housing as stand-alone, and integrated concepts. In the second part, Sustainable Assessment Tools (SATs) and their associated indicators were analysed. Framework indicators and conceptual definitions identified within the literature were then compared. This analysis indicates that future investigation into the successes and failures of housing case studies should be conducted through an integrated approach to sustainability, to identify areas for improvement.

 

3. Conceptualisation

Sustainability in the housing context is used as an umbrella term to incorporate the demands for affordable, inclusive, and environmentally responsible living environments. The most common conceptualisation of sustainability follows the triple bottom line paradigm (Elkington, 1997), formed by social, environmental, and economic pillars. Other scholars have also added political, cultural, or institutional aspects (Littig & Grießler, 2005). However, sustainability is often used ambiguously or in a techno-managerial way (Mehmood & Parra, 2013) following a functionalist approach which silences existing conflicts and depoliticises the concept (Paidakaki & Lang, 2021). This reduces its meaning to ticking boxes on pre-defined frameworks that often prioritise environmental aspects (Berardi, 2012) because they are easier to measure (Manoochehri, 2016). Should sustainability be understood as part of a broader process following democratic values of decision-making, the co-production of housing can lead towards societal transformation.

 

Social sustainability proposes social relations within a city that improves the existing by opposing social inequalities, such as segregation and exclusion (Brindley, 2003). There are three main aspects of social impact within communities: social materiality (physical living conditions, physical health, and economic fairness), social equity (justice, human rights, and economic opportunities), and community life (community well-being and social networks). Further literature considers the relationship between social sustainability and the other two pillars through five main approaches (Edwards, 2019): a limiting constraint on the other dimensions (Boyer et al., 2016); a human developmental approach (Dempsey et al., 2011); a bridging approach between the others; a maintenance approach that preserves culture (Vallance et al., 2011); or an integrated, process-oriented approach (Edwards, 2019). Several critical points were identified to be examined during case study analysis: assessment of objective or subjective conditions, the ontology of the ‘community’ and ‘neighbourhood’ groups, top-down or bottom-up indicators, and assessment of current or future-oriented impact (Magee et al., 2012).

 

Environmental sustainability in housing revolves around reducing greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption (European Commission, 2021). Energy efficiency can be achieved through two approaches: active and passive maintenance strategies affecting ventilation, heating, water, and electricity (Kubba, 2012b); and embodied energy savings. Passive maintenance design strategies include building shape and orientation, passive solar gain, daylighting, natural ventilation, thermal mass, and insulation to preserve warmth (Hannula, 2012; Kubba, 2012a), while active strategies use smart energy management systems to monitor and control mechanical systems, alongside energy production through renewable energy sources (RES). Energy savings through embodied energy can be achieved during production, transportation, material assemblage, and building technique (Hannula, 2012). Existing buildings have high embodied energy and therefore high environmental sustainability potential when integrated with passive and active maintenance techniques. Further, if residents’ needs are integrated with care to avoid top-down decision-making that exacerbates disempowerment, social sustainability can be reached.

 

Separating environmental sustainability from the other pillars can lead to housing with especially low energy consumption. Such is the case with net zero energy buildings (NZEB) and energy positive buildings, which use on-site RES to produce as much, or more, energy than needed for building operation (D’Agostino et al., 2022; Kubba, 2012b). However, NZEBs rely on technical solutions that could create further social sustainability issues: increased upfront and maintenance costs, exacerbated inequalities, inaccessibility, and emotional distress (Lowe et al., 2018). Improving energy efficiency and housing quality while paying close attention to residents’ needs can directly improve social sustainability through financial cost, health and well-being, and quality of life (URBED, 2022). To unify environmental and social sustainability, it is necessary to situate pragmatic environmental solutions within the critical paradigm.

 

4. Measurement

The shift towards sustainable development in recent decades has prompted the evolution of SATs to objectively measure sustainability. SATs are perceived as useful guides for decisionmaking during different phases of a project: planning, design, construction, maintenance, and end-of-life (Karji et al., 2019). Measurements can help assess housing and resident satisfaction, identify successes and failures in housing, and suggest further improvements. Comparative studies of SATs have been performed to better define key indicators and remove subjectivity from measurements (Thuvander et al., 2012; Al Waer & Sibley, 2005). Total quality assessment (TQA) systems aim to consider ecological, economic and social aspects, often including both qualitative and quantitative approaches for the varying criteria (Berardi, 2012). To test this aim, the four most widely used and researched TQA systems were chosen from the literature (Berardi, 2012; Karji et al., 2019; Orova & Reith, 2019; Thuvander et al., 2012) and analysed — BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE and DGNB —as well as the EU Level(s) Framework, launched in 2020 to homogenise housing sustainability measures (European Commission, 2021). The building scale and neighbourhood scale variation of each framework were analysed to broaden the scope of sustainability indicators.

 

5. Conclusion and discussion

The analysis found that the social dimensions of sustainability are only partially considered in existing measurement frameworks, which tend to favour building energy performance. As social sustainability is less profitable, it does not fit succinctly into existing market-orientated structures, and therefore sustainable technical housing infrastructure is favoured. However, housing sustainability must be approached holistically. To achieve this, the following recommendations are suggested: apply sustainability as a transformative process, rather than functioning as a checklist; take an embedded approach to incorporate community well-being, economic affordability, and energy efficiency; approach sustainability as a dynamic concept, in the same way that contexts, practices, and technologies evolve over time; be place-specific as homogenised frameworks are incompatible with the realities of diverse contexts. Finally, sustainability should be the result of a broader collaborative process between communities and institutions, so that residents have the opportunity to influence governing institutions towards policies for housing provision and adaptation aligned with their needs.

 

Acknowledgment

The work presented has been carried out within the RE-DWELL Innovative Training Network, funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 956082.

 

References

Berardi, U. (2012). Sustainability Assessment in the Construction Sector: Rating Systems and

Rated Buildings. Sustainable Development, 20(6), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.532

Boyer, R. H., Peterson, N. D., Arora, P., & Caldwell, K. (2016). Five approaches to social

sustainability and an integrated way forward. Sustainability, 8(9), 878.

https://doi.org/10.3390/SU8090878

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 76

Brindley, T. (2003). The social dimension of the urban village: A comparison of models for

sustainable urban development. Urban Design International, 8, 53-65.

https://doi.org/10.1057/PALGRAVE.UDI.9000093

Chen, G., Cheng, L., & Li, F. (2022). Integrating Sustainability and Users’ Demands in the Retrofit

of a University Campus in China. Sustainability, 14(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610414

D’Agostino, D., Mazzella, S., Minelli, F., & Minichiello, F. (2022). Obtaining the nzeb target by

using photovoltaic systems on the roof for multi-storey buildings. Energy and Buildings,

112147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112147

Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable

development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(5), 289–300.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.417

Edwards, M. (2019). Social Sustainability and Housing for Vulnerable Groups in Sweden: An

Integrated Literature Review. Oxford.

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals With Forks: Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford.

European Commission (2021). 2021/0426 (COD) Directive of The European Parliament and of

the Council on the Energy Performance of Buildings (Recast). https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0550&from=E

European Commission (2020). 2050 long-term strategy. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/euaction/climate-strategies-targets/2050-long-term-strategy_en

Hannula, E.-L. (2012). Going green: a handbook of sustainable housing practices in developing

countries. UN-HABITAT. https://unhabitat.org/going-green-a-handbook-of-sustainablehousing-practices-in-developing-countries

Karji, A., Woldesenbet, A., Khanzadi, M., & Tafazzoli, M. (2019). Assessment of Social

Sustainability Indicators in Mass Housing Construction: A Case Study of Mehr Housing

Project. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, 101697.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2019.101697

Kubba, S. (2012a). Green Design and the Construction Process. In S. Kubba, Handbook of Green

Building Design and Construction (pp. 105–144). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-

12-385128-4.00003-2

Kubba, S. (2012b). Impact of Energy and Atmosphere. In S. Kubba, Handbook of Green Building

Design and Construction (pp. 385–492). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-

385128-4.00009-3

Littig, B., & Grießler, E. (2005). Social sustainability: A catchword between political pragmatism

and social theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1–2), 65–79.

https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsd.2005.007375

Lowe, R., Chiu, L. F., & Oreszczyn, T. (2018). Socio-technical case study method in building

performance evaluation. Building Research and Information, 46(5), 469–484.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1361275

Magee, L., Scerri, A., & James, P. (2012). Measuring Social Sustainability: A Community-Centred

Approach. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 7(3), 239–261.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-012-9166-x

RE-DWELL Grenoble Conference 77

Manoochehri, J. (2016). Social sustainability and the housing problem. In M. Dastbaz, I. Strange,

& S. Selkowitz (Eds.), Building Sustainable Futures: Design and the Built Environment (pp.

325-347). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19348-9_14

Mehmood, A., & Parra, C. (2013). Social innovation in an unsustainable world. In F. Moulaert, D.

MacCallum, A. Mehmood, & A. Hamdouch (Eds.), The International Handbook on Social

Innovation (pp. 53–66). Edward Elgar Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849809986.00014

Orova, M., & Reith, A. (2019). Multiscalarity in International Sustainable Assessment Systems: A

Qualitative Comparison of LEED, CASBEE, BREEAM, DGNB and ESTIDAMA on Building,

Neighbourhood and City Scale. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,

290(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/290/1/012056

Paidakaki, A., & Lang, R. (2021). Uncovering social sustainability in housing systems through the

lens of institutional capital: A study of two housing alliances in Vienna, Austria. Sustainability,

13(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179726

Thuvander, L., Femenías, P., Mjörnell, K., & Meiling, P. (2012). Unveiling the Process of

Sustainable Renovation. Sustainability, 4(6), 1188–1213. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4061188

United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Universal Declaration of Human

Rights; United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-humanrights

URBED (2020). The Quality of Life Framework. http://urbed.coop/projects/quality-lifefoundation-framework

Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., & Dixon, J. E. (2011). What is social sustainability? A clarification of

concepts. Geoforum, 42(3), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.002

Al Waer, H., & Sibley, M. (2005, April). Building sustainability assessment methods: Indicators,

applications, limitations and development trends. In Conference on Sustainable Building

South East Asia, 1-13.

Related case studies

No entries

Related vocabulary

Social Sustainability

Sustainability

Sustainability Built Environment

Area: Community participation

From the three pillars of sustainable development, economic, environmental and social, the latter  involving social equity and the sustainability of communities, has  been especially neglected. Ongoing problems caused by conflicting economic, environmental and social goals with regard to the processes of urbanisation continue. underpinning economic growth that contradict principles of environmental and social justice (Boström, 2012; Cuthill, 2010; Winston, 2009). Research on sustainable development highlights the need for further investigation of social sustainability (Murphy, 2012; Vallance et al., 2011). Social sustainability has been interpreted as an umbrella term encompassing many other related concepts; “social equity and justice, social capital, social cohesion, social exclusion, environmental justice, quality of life, and urban liveability” (Shirazi & Keivani, 2019, p. 4). A vast number of studies have been dedicated to defining social sustainability by developing theoretical frameworks and indicators particularly relevant to urban development and housing discourse (Cuthill, 2010; Dempsey et al., 2011; Murphy, 2012; Woodcraft, 2012). However, with a lack of consensus on the way of utilising these frameworks in a practical way, especially when applied to planning, social sustainability has remained difficult to evaluate or measure. Consequently, planning experts, housing providers and inhabitants alike understand social sustainability as a normative concept, according to established social norms, and less as an opportunity to critically examine existing institutions. Vallance et al (2011) provide three categories to analyse social sustainability, development, bridge and maintenance sustainability: (a) social development improves conditions of poverty and inequity, from the provision of basic needs to the redistribution of power to influence existing development paradigms; (b) the conditions necessary to bridge social with ecological sustainability, overcoming currently disconnected social and ecological concerns; and (c) the social practices, cultural preferences as well as the environments which are maintained over time. Maintenance social sustainability particularly deals with how people interpret what is to be maintained and includes “new housing developments, the layout of streets, open spaces, residential densities, the location of services, an awareness of habitual movements in place, and how they connect with housing cultures, preferences, practices and values, particularly those for low-density, suburban lifestyles” (Vallance et al., 2011, p. 345). Therefore, the notion of maintenance is especially important in defining social sustainability by directly investigating the established institutions, or “sets of norms” that constitute the social practices and rules, that in turn, affect responsibilities for planning urban spaces. A conceptual framework that appears frequently in social sustainability literature is that of Dempsey et al. (2011)⁠ following Bramley et al. (2009), defining social sustainability according to the variables of social equity and sustainability of community and their relationship to urban form, significantly at the local scale of the neighbourhood. In terms of the built environment, social equity (used interchangeably with social justice) is understood as the accessibility and equal opportunities to frequently used services, facilities, decent and affordable housing, and good public transport. In this description of local, as opposed to regional services, proximity and accessibility are important. Equitable access to such local services effectively connects housing to key aspects of everyday life and to the wider urban infrastructures that support it. Sustainability of community is associated with the abilities of society to develop networks of collective organisation and action and is dependent on social interaction. The associated term social capital has also been used extensively to describe social norms and networks that can be witnessed particularly at the community level to facilitate collective action (Woolcock, 2001, p. 70). They might include a diversity of issues such as resident interaction, reciprocity, cooperation and trust expressed by common exchanges between residents, civic engagement, lower crime rates and other positive neighbourhood qualities that are dependent on sharing a commitment to place (Foster, 2006; Putnam, 1995; Temkin & Rohe, 1998). In fact, “the heightened sense of ownership and belonging to a locale” is considered to encourage the development of social relations (Hamiduddin & Adelfio, 2019, p. 188). However, the gap between theoretical discussions about social sustainability and their practical application has continued. For example, the emphasis of social sustainability as a target outcome rather than as a process has been prioritised in technocratic approaches to planning new housing developments and to measuring their success by factors which are tangible and easier to count and audit. Private housing developers that deal with urban regeneration make bold claims to social sustainability yet profound questions are raised regarding the effects of gentrification (Dixon, 2019). Accordingly, the attempted methods of public participation as planning tools for integrating the ‘social’ have been found to be less effective - their potential being undercut due to the reality that decision-making power has remained at the top (Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017). Therefore, social sustainability is not a fixed concept, it is contingent on the interdependence of the procedural aspects (how to achieve social sustainability) and substantive aspects (what are the outcomes of social sustainability goals) (Boström, 2012). From this point of view, social sustainability reveals its process-oriented nature and the need to establish processes of practicing social sustainability that begin with the participation of citizens in decision-making processes in producing equitable (i.e. socially sustainable) development. As a dimension of sustainable development that is harder to quantify than the economic or environmental aspects, the operationalisation of social sustainability goals into spatial, actionable principles has remained a burgeoning area of research. In such research, methods for enhancing citizen participation are a particularly important concern in order to engage and empower people with “non-expert” knowledge to collaborate with academic researchers.

Created on 03-06-2022

Author: A.Panagidis (ESR8)

Read more ->

Area: Community participation

Sustainability is primarily defined as 'the idea that goods and services should be produced in ways that do not use resources that cannot be replaced and that do not damage the environment' (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus, n.d.) and is often used interchangeably with the term “sustainable development”(Aras & Crowther, 2009). As defined by the UN, sustainable development is the effort to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations, 1987) and is often interpreted as the strategies adopted towards sustainability with the latter being the overall goal/vision (Diesendorf, 2000). Both of these relatively general and often ambiguous terms have been a focal point for the past 20 years for researchers, policy makers, corporations as well as local communities, and activist groups, among others, (Purvis et al., 2019). The ambiguity and vagueness that characterise both of these terms have contributed to their leap into the global mainstream as well as the broad political consensus regarding their value and significance (Mebratu, 1998; Purvis et al., 2019), rendering them one of the dominant discourses in environmental, socio-political and economic issues (Tulloch, 2013). It is, however, highly contested whether their institutionalisation is a positive development. Tulloch, and Tulloch & Nielson (2013; 2014) argue that these terms -as they are currently understood- are the outcome of the “[colonisation of] environmentalist thought and action” which, during the 1960s and 1970s, argued that economic growth and ecological sustainability within the capitalist system were contradictory pursuits. This “colonisation” resulted in the disempowerment of such discourses and their subsequent “[subordination] to neoliberal hegemony” (Tulloch & Neilson, 2014, p. 26). Thus, sustainability and sustainable development, when articulated within neoliberalism, not only reinforce such disempowerment, through practices such as greenwashing, but also fail to address the intrinsic issues of a system that operates on, safeguards, and prioritises economic profit over social and ecological well-being (Jakobsen, 2022). Murray Bookchin (1982), in “The Ecology of Freedom” contends that social and environmental issues are profoundly entangled, and their origin can be traced to the notions of hierarchy and domination. Bookchin perceives the exploitative relationship with nature as a direct outcome of the development of hierarchies within early human societies and their proliferation ever since. In order to re-radicalise sustainability, we need to undertake the utopian task of revisiting our intra-relating, breaking down these hierarchical relations, and re-stitching our social fabric. The intra-relating between and within the molecules of a society (i.e. the different communities it consists of) determines how sustainability is understood and practised (or performed), both within these communities and within the society they form. In other words, a reconfigured, non-hierarchical, non-dominating intra-relationship is the element that can allow for an equitable, long-term setting for human activity in symbiosis with nature (Dempsey et al., 2011, p. 290). By encouraging, striving for, and providing the necessary space for all voices to be heard, for friction and empathy to occur, the aforementioned long-term setting for human activity based on a non-hierarchical, non-dominating intra-relating is strengthened, which augments the need for various forms of community participation in decision-making, from consulting to controlling. From the standpoint of spatial design and architecture, community participation is already acknowledged as being of inherent value in empowering communities (Jenkins & Forsyth, 2009), while inclusion in all facets of creation, and community control in management and maintenance can improve well-being and social reproduction (Newton & Rocco, 2022; Turner, 1982). However, much like sustainability, community participation has been co-opted by the neoliberal hegemony; often used as a “front” for legitimising political agendas or as panacea to all design problems, community participation has been heavily losing its significance as a force of social change (Smith & Iversen, 2018), thus becoming a depoliticised, romanticised prop. Marcus Miessen (2011) has developed a critical standpoint towards what is being labelled as participation; instead of a systematic effort to find common ground and/or reach consensus, participation through a cross-benching approach could be a way to create enclaves of disruption, i.e. processes where hierarchy and power relations are questioned, design becomes post-consensual spatial agency and participation turns into a fertile ground for internal struggle and contestation. Through this cross-benching premise, community participation is transformed into a re-politicised spatial force. In this context, design serves as a tool of expressing new imaginaries that stand against the reproduction of the neoliberal spatial discourse. Thus, sustainability through community participation could be defined as the politicised effort to question, deconstruct and dismantle the concept of dominance by reconfiguring the process of intra-relating between humans and non-humans alike.

Created on 08-06-2022

Author: E.Roussou (ESR9)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

Sustainability of the built environment The emergence of the contemporary environmental movement between the 1960s and 1970s and its proposals to remedy the consequences of pollution can be seen as one of the first steps in addressing environmental problems (Scoones, 2007). However, the term “sustainable” only gained wider currency when it was introduced into political discourse by the Club of Rome with its 1972 report “The Limits to Growth”, in which the proposal to change growth trends to be sustainable in the far future was put forward (Grober, 2007; Kopnina & Shoreman-Ouimet, 2015a; Meadows et al., 1972). Since then, the use of the term has grown rapidly, especially after the publication of the 1978 report “Our Common Future”, which became a cornerstone of debates on sustainability and sustainable development (Brundtland et al., 1987; Kopnina & Shoreman-Ouimet, 2015a). Although the two terms are often used indistinctively, the former refers to managing resources without depleting them for future generations, while the latter aims to improve long-term economic well-being and quality of life without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (Kopnina & Shoreman-Ouimet, 2015b; UNESCO, 2015). The Brundtland Report paved the way for the 1992 Earth Summit, which concluded that an effective balance must be found between consumption and conservation of natural resources (Scoones, 2007). In 2000, the United Nations General Assembly published the 8 Millennium Development Goals (UN, 2000), which led to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) published in 2016 (UN, 2016). The 17 SDGs call on all countries to mobilise their efforts to end all forms of poverty, tackle inequalities and combat climate change (UN, 2020; UNDP, 2018). Despite the rapidly growing literature on sustainability, the term remains ambiguous and lacks a clear conceptual foundation (Grober, 2007; Purvis et al., 2019). Murphy (2012) suggests that when defining sustainability, the question should be: Sustainability, of what? However, one of the most prominent interpretations of sustainability is the three pillars concept, which describes the interaction between the social, economic and environmental components of society (Purvis et al., 2019). The environmental pillar aims to improve human well-being by protecting natural capital -e.g. land, air and water- (Morelli, 2011). The economic sustainability pillar focuses on maintaining stable economic growth without damaging natural resources (Dunphy et al., 2000). Social sustainability, on the other hand, aims to preserve social capital and create a practical social framework that provides a comprehensive view of people's needs, communities and culture (Diesendorf, 2000). This latter pillar paved the way for the creation of a fourth pillar that includes human and culture as a focal point in sustainability objectives (RMIT, 2017). Jabareen (2006) describes environmental sustainability as a dynamic, inclusive and multidisciplinary concept that overlaps with other concepts such as resilience, durability and renewability. Morelli (2011) adds that it can be applied at different levels and includes tangible and intangible issues. Portney (2015) takes Morelli's explanation further and advocates that environmental sustainability should also promote industrial efficiency without compromising society's ability to develop (Morelli, 2011; Portney, 2015). Measuring the built environment sustainability level is a complex process that deploys quantitative methods, including (1) indexes (e.g. energy efficiency rate), (2) indicators (e.g. carbon emissions and carbon footprint), (3) benchmarks (e.g. water consumption per capita) and (4) audits (e.g. building management system efficiency) (Arjen, 2015; Berardi, 2012; James, 2014; Kubba, 2012). In recent years, several rating or certification systems and practical guides have been created and developed to measure sustainability, most notably the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) introduced in the UK in 1990 (BRE, 2016) and the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) established in the US in 2000 (USGBC, 2018). In addition, other overlapping methodologies and certification frameworks have emerged, such as the European Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) in 2002 (EPB, 2003) and the European Framework for Sustainable Buildings, also known as Level(s) in 2020 (EU, 2020), amongst others. The sustainability of the built environment aims to reduce human consumption of natural resources and the production of waste while improving the health and comfort of inhabitants and thus the performance of the built environment elements such as buildings and spaces, and the infrastructure that supports human activities (Berardi, 2012; McLennan, 2004). This aim requires an effective theoretical and practical framework that encompasses at least six domains, including land, water, energy, indoor and outdoor environments, and economic and cultural preservation (Ferwati et al., 2019). More recently, other domains have been added, such as health and comfort, resource use, environmental performance, and cost-benefit and risk (EU, 2020). Sustainability of the built environment also requires comprehensive coordination between the architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical and environmental systems of buildings in the design, construction and operation phases to improve performance and avoid unnecessary resource consumption (Yates & Castro-Lacouture, 2018).

Created on 24-06-2022

Author: M.Alsaeed (ESR5), K.Hadjri (Supervisor)

Read more ->

Blogposts

No entries

Relational graph

icon case study Case Study
icon case study Concept
icon case study Publication
icon case study Blogposts