By Thomas Lützkendorf (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, DE)
The sole reliance on a sectoral approach to GHG emission reductions is problematic and incomplete because it fails to engage with the complex array of built environment actors. A different conceptual and practical approach is proposed which involves ‘areas of need’ and ‘areas of activity’. A scalable GHG budget for the built environment will be more effective in reducing built environment GHG emissions and allow actors to take more control over their emissions.
It is accepted that great efforts are needed to achieve a massive reduction in GHG emissions to net-zero. To do this effectively requires the definition and creation of GHG emission budgets for specific action areas and sectors. These budgets are necessary to develop reduction strategies and to introduce control mechanisms, (legal) requirements and incentives. This also applies to the construction, refurbishment, operation and use of construction works of all kinds, including buildings. This process is currently taking place in some countries. My expectation and hope is that the commitments made at COP-26 will lead to a scalable budget for the built environment that gives clarity to the many different actors involved and provides them with a clear set of metrics to achieve – both in the short and medium term.
The creation of a specific GHG emission budget for the built environment will not be easy. Indeed, the various inputs for its creation, operation and maintenance span many sectors which makes the accounting or allocation of emissions difficult. In a sectoral analysis, the allocation of GHG emissions is complicated for the construction and real estate sector because of its overlaps with the energy sector, the (construction product) manufacturing industry, the transport sector, waste management sector and, in some cases, agriculture sector. If the indirect emissions assigned to the energy sector are added to the direct emissions from building operation, the share attributed to the operation of residential and non-residential buildings rises to 25-30% of energy-related CO2 emissions (GABC et al., 2019). If the emissions from the manufacturing of construction products for new buildings and refurbishments are included, the share of all building-related activities based on international and national studies is around 40% of all energy- and process-related CO2 emissions (GABC et al., 2019). This suggests the true magnitude of the built environment’s impact. But net-zero CO2-emission buildings are not enough to save the climate. In future we must include all energy- and process-related GHG emissions into such statistics as well as related strategies.
A thematic approach via macroeconomic sectors is often chosen but is problematic and incomplete because:
In macroeconomics, buildings (and the built environment) are not a sector - the term ‘building sector’ is misleading (Habert et al, 2020).
If we consider the built environment as an object of assessment, this overcomes the difficulties associated with the sectoral approach. The responsibility and influence for construction, refurbishment lie with investors and owners, the operation resides with users. A promising alternative to the sectoral approach is to consider the construction, refurbishment and operation of buildings as an ‘area of action’ and the use of buildings, e.g. for residential purposes, as a service or ‘area of need’. The consideration of the ‘areas of need’ shows references to the personal carbon budget (Fuso Nerini et al., 2021) and thus also makes the connections clear for individuals. It is therefore proposed to make greater use of these perspectives when designing and implementing reduction targets:
The ‘area of activity’ perspective is particularly suitable for influencing the direct and indirect GHG emissions associated with the construction, refurbishment and operation of buildings. It is possible to address and involve all actors along the value chain. In the spirit of SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), the suppliers and consumers of construction products, services and buildings can make their contribution to SDG 13 (Climate Action). It is not enough to manufacture low carbon products and implement net zero emission buildings; they must be accompanied by demand-side ‘pull’, finance and ‘value’. The development taking place in Europe with respect to developing a taxonomy (European Commission, 2021) will address demand and finance by providing preferential financial investment to projects that contribute to sustainable development. Real estate financing is a major focus and taxonomy already calls for the determination of a carbon footprint for buildings. Research projects such as IEA EBC Annex 72 (IEA, 2021) are clarifying the methodological basis for its calculation as well as assessment. This complements various national and local activities in Europe. The cross-sectoral approach at the economic level corresponds to the analysis, assessment and decisions involving GHG emissions when designing new construction and refurbishment measures, taking into account a life cycle related environmental performance assessment.
Society urgently needs to supplement the traditional sectoral approach to GHG emissions with cross-sectoral activities. Researchers, NGOs and policymakers need to actively explain and recommend this internationally. This is the only way to tap the enormous potential for reductions by the many different actors along the value chain, but also by built environment ‘consumers’ (e.g. clients, owners and tenants). In the spirit of Graz Declaration for Climate Protection in the Built Environment (SBE19 Graz, 2019) there is a need for scalable targets on national, regional, national & institutional building stock, city and building level including budgets as guidance for design, funding and legislation.
European Commission. (2021). EU Taxonomy Compass. https://ec.europa.eu/sustainable-finance-taxonomy/activities/activity_en.htm?reference=7.1
GABC, IEA, UNEP. (2019). 2019 Global status report for buildings and construction: towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector. https://bit.ly/3nOO2ff
Habert, G., Röck, M., Steininger, K., Lupisek, A., Birgisdottir, H., Desing, H., Chandrakumar, C., Pittau, F., Passer, A., Rovers, R., Slavkovic, K, Hollberg, A., Hoxha, E., Jusselme, T., Nault, E., Allacker, K., Lützkendorf, T. (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
IEA. (2021). IEA EBC Annex 72: assessing life cycle related environmental impacts caused by buildings. https://annex72.iea-ebc.org/
Fuso Nerini, F., Fawcett, T., Parag, Y., Ekins, P. (2021). Personal carbon allowances revisited. Nature Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00756-w
SBE19 Graz. (2019). Graz Declaration for Climate Protection in the Built Environment. https://gd.ccca.ac.at/
Health inequalities and indoor environments: research challenges and priorities [editorial]
M Ucci & A Mavrogianni
Operationalising energy sufficiency for low-carbon built environments in urbanising India
A B Lall & G Sethi
Promoting practices of sufficiency: reprogramming resource-intensive material arrangements
T H Christensen, L K Aagaard, A K Juvik, C Samson & K Gram-Hanssen
Culture change in the UK construction industry: an anthropological perspective
I Tellam
Are people willing to share living space? Household preferences in Finland
E Ruokamo, E Kylkilahti, M Lettenmeier & A Toppinen
Towards urban LCA: examining densification alternatives for a residential neighbourhood
M Moisio, E Salmio, T Kaasalainen, S Huuhka, A Räsänen, J Lahdensivu, M Leppänen & P Kuula
A population-level framework to estimate unequal exposure to indoor heat and air pollution
R Cole, C H Simpson, L Ferguson, P Symonds, J Taylor, C Heaviside, P Murage, H L Macintyre, S Hajat, A Mavrogianni & M Davies
Finnish glazed balconies: residents’ experience, wellbeing and use
L Jegard, R Castaño-Rosa, S Kilpeläinen & S Pelsmakers
Modelling Nigerian residential dwellings: bottom-up approach and scenario analysis
C C Nwagwu, S Akin & E G Hertwich
Mapping municipal land policies: applications of flexible zoning for densification
V Götze, J-D Gerber & M Jehling
Energy sufficiency and recognition justice: a study of household consumption
A Guilbert
Linking housing, socio-demographic, environmental and mental health data at scale
P Symonds, C H Simpson, G Petrou, L Ferguson, A Mavrogianni & M Davies
Measuring health inequities due to housing characteristics
K Govertsen & M Kane
Provide or prevent? Exploring sufficiency imaginaries within Danish systems of provision
L K Aagaard & T H Christensen
Imagining sufficiency through collective changes as satisfiers
O Moynat & M Sahakian
US urban land-use reform: a strategy for energy sufficiency
Z M Subin, J Lombardi, R Muralidharan, J Korn, J Malik, T Pullen, M Wei & T Hong
Mapping supply chains for energy retrofit
F Wade & Y Han
Operationalising building-related energy sufficiency measures in SMEs
I Fouiteh, J D Cabrera Santelices, A Susini & M K Patel
Promoting neighbourhood sharing: infrastructures of convenience and community
A Huber, H Heinrichs & M Jaeger-Erben
New insights into thermal comfort sufficiency in dwellings
G van Moeseke, D de Grave, A Anciaux, J Sobczak & G Wallenborn
‘Rightsize’: a housing design game for spatial and energy sufficiency
P Graham, P Nourian, E Warwick & M Gath-Morad
Implementing housing policies for a sufficient lifestyle
M Bagheri, L Roth, L Siebke, C Rohde & H-J Linke
The jobs of climate adaptation
T Denham, L Rickards & O Ajulo
Structural barriers to sufficiency: the contribution of research on elites
M Koch, K Emilsson, J Lee & H Johansson
Life-cycle GHG emissions of standard houses in Thailand
B Viriyaroj, M Kuittinen & S H Gheewala
IAQ and environmental health literacy: lived experiences of vulnerable people
C Smith, A Drinkwater, M Modlich, D van der Horst & R Doherty
Living smaller: acceptance, effects and structural factors in the EU
M Lehner, J L Richter, H Kreinin, P Mamut, E Vadovics, J Henman, O Mont & D Fuchs
Disrupting the imaginaries of urban action to deliver just adaptation [editorial]
V Castán-Broto, M Olazabal & G Ziervogel
Building energy use in COVID-19 lockdowns: did much change?
F Hollick, D Humphrey, T Oreszczyn, C Elwell & G Huebner
Evaluating past and future building operational emissions: improved method
S Huuhka, M Moisio & M Arnould
Normative future visioning: a critical pedagogy for transformative adaptation
T Comelli, M Pelling, M Hope, J Ensor, M E Filippi, E Y Menteşe & J McCloskey
Nature for resilience reconfigured: global- to-local translation of frames in Africa
K Rochell, H Bulkeley & H Runhaar
How hegemonic discourses of sustainability influence urban climate action
V Castán Broto, L Westman & P Huang
Fabric first: is it still the right approach?
N Eyre, T Fawcett, M Topouzi, G Killip, T Oreszczyn, K Jenkinson & J Rosenow
Social value of the built environment [editorial]
F Samuel & K Watson
Understanding demolition [editorial]
S Huuhka
Data politics in the built environment [editorial]
A Karvonen & T Hargreaves
Latest Commentaries
5th Anniversary Essays
These commissioned essays from Buildings & Cities' authors and readers explore how the research landscape is changing. New essays are continuously being added to the collection during 2024 as part of B&C's anniversary.
Collectively, these essays offer fresh insights into the processes and issues that are currently inadequate or missing in the built environment research landscape. A wide perspective from different disciplines and geographies creates a positive, collective vision for shaping the research agenda. Recommendations are made for what needs to change.
We hope this will provoke and inspire research funders, researchers and other stakeholders to discuss, reflect and act. Ideas range from systemic change to key research questions to improving engagement to change of focus.
The Challenges of Evidence-Based Design
While some progress has been made, particularly in areas like healing architecture where the impact of design on human well-being is more directly observable, much work remains to be done to extend evidence-based design to broader fields of architecture, urban planning and design. Meta Berghauser Pont (Chalmers University of Technology) explains the challenges and pathways needed for a shift toward evidence-based design in urban planning and urban design.