RESEARCHERS DECLARE! A series of specific recommendations for action were recently created by the research community for policymakers, industry and society.
These recommendations and actions focus on the assessment and reduction of environmental & climate impacts and resource consumption over the life cycle of buildings.
Rolf Frischknecht (Treeze Ltd) and Thomas Lützkendorf (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) introduce the Monte Verità Declaration and discuss some of its implications for those working in the built environment.
Given the urgency of the climate crisis and the need for coordinated action, an expert group [1] of more than 40 researchers from 20 countries agreed on a wide set of recommendations which support policy, industry and society in reaching net zero GHG emissions. The recommendations are targeted on a wide range of actors: governments and administrations; investors, financial institutions; research organisations; designers, architects and engineers; operators of EPD programs, sector specific LCA databases, certification schemes and labels; construction product and building technology manufacturers; construction companies; real estate agents; as well as users and tenants of buildings.
The Monte Verità Declaration (IEA EBC Annex 72 experts 2021) and its recommendations focus on the assessment and reduction of environmental impacts and resource consumption over the life cycle of buildings. This is the core topic of the experts and their research institutes co-operating in IEA EBC Annex 72. While the declaration has a special focus on GHG emissions and related impacts on global environment, further environmental impacts include the use and depletion of natural resources and impacts on local environment are also addressed to avoid burden shifting.
The Monte Verità Declaration builds on the Graz Declaration of Climate Protection in the Built Environment (SBE19 2019) by providing specific recommendations for action.
One of the key recommendations, addressed to governments and administration, is the introduction of legally binding requirements to limit GHG-emissions of new constructions and of refurbishments by 2025 latest with a roadmap to net zero emissions by 2035. The recommendation is to enlarge the regulation of GHGs from operational energy to include embodied emissions from the supply chain and to cover the full life cycle of the building (see also Lützkendorf & Frischknecht 2020; Satola et al. 2021).
Transparency and directionality are needed in the area of balancing and compensation. Existing approaches differ in the level of ambition. Some countries and labelling schemes assume that exported energy (e.g. electricity from photovoltaics attached to buildings) reduces electricity generated from fossil fuels and those potentially avoided emissions may be used to compensate the GHG emissions of those buildings. Others recommend to buy CO2 emission certificates to compensate for the remaining GHG emissions of the building. In accounting terms both approaches are – from point of view of the authors of this contribution - likely to lead to increased GHG emissions elsewhere. A third option is to invest in negative emission technologies which remove CO2 from the atmosphere or biogenic CO2 from flue gases and permanently sequester it. While this option would allow for truly net zero buildings it is technically not yet proven at large scales.
Is the request for the introduction of legally binding requirements until 2025 with a decarbonisation path until 2035 realistic? Yes, some activities are going already in this direction. Several European countries introduced or will soon introduce binding requirements to limit the GHG emissions over the life cycle of buildings. This legislative process shall be and is being supported by parallel activities, in particular the supply and testing of LCA databases and design tools, the education and training of the actors involved as well as the revision of real estate tools (valuation, tenancy laws). All actors, including manufacturers and suppliers, investors, designers and educators are dependent on an early publication of a binding reduction pathway from 2025 to 2035. Some actors may need reliable funding programmes to help make the transition.
While some countries have clear and practical rules, certified design tools and reliable LCA data available, others are in need of these resources.
Without compromising the urgent need for legally binding requirements and a reduction path to net zero GHG emissions by 2035, from point of view of the authors the following questions among others require further refinement of the modelling and assessment rules:
The authors recommend to go even beyond the contents of the Monte Verità Declaration and address these topics. They are convinced that the research community has an important, urgent role to provide clear evidence.
[1] Visit https://annex72.iea-ebc.org/ for further information about the experts involved and for guidelines and recommendations (expected to be published in late 2022).
Frischknecht R., Birgisdottir H., Chae C.U., Lützkendorf T. and Passer A. (2019). IEA EBC Annex 72 - Assessing life cycle related environmental impacts caused by buildings – targets and tasks. In: Proceedings of Sustainable Built Environment D-A-CH Conference 2019, Graz, Austria. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 323, 012042. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012042.
IEA (2021) Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. Paris: International Energy Agency.
IEA EBC Annex 72 Experts (2021). The Monte Verità Declaration on a Built Environment within Planetary Boundaries. IEA EBC Annex 72 experts, Monte Verità, Ticino, Switzerland.
Lützkendorf T. and Frischknecht R. (2020). (Net-) zero-emission buildings: a typology of terms and definitions. Buildings and Cities, 1(1), pp. 662–675, http://doi.org/10.5334/bc.66.
Satola D., Balouktsi M., Lützkendorf T., Houlihan Wiberg A. and Gustavsen A. (2021). How to define (net) zero greenhouse gas emissions buildings: the results of an international survey as part of IEA EBC annex 72. Building and Environment, 107619. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107619
SBE19. (2019). Graz Declaration for Climate Protection in the Built Environment. In: Proceedings of the Sustainable Built Environment D-A-CH Conference 2019. (11-14 September 2019). Graz: Graz University of Technology.
Spatiotemporal evaluation of embodied carbon in urban residential development
I Talvitie, A Amiri & S Junnila
Energy sufficiency in buildings and cities: current research, future directions [editorial]
M Sahakian, T Fawcett & S Darby
Sufficiency, consumption patterns and limits: a survey of French households
J Bouillet & C Grandclément
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
Systems Thinking is Needed to Achieve Sustainable Cities
As city populations grow, a critical current and future challenge for urban researchers is to provide compelling evidence of the medium and long-term co-benefits of quality, low-carbon affordable housing and compact urban design. Philippa Howden-Chapman (University of Otago) and Ralph Chapman (Victoria University of Wellington) explain why systems-based, transition-oriented research on housing and associated systemic benefits is needed now more than ever.
Unmaking Cities Can Catalyse Sustainable Transformations
Andrew Karvonen (Lund University) explains why innovation has limitations for achieving systemic change. What is also needed is a process of unmaking (i.e. phasing out existing harmful technologies, processes and practices) whilst ensuring inequalities, vulnerabilities and economic hazards are avoided. Researchers have an important role to identify what needs dismantling, identify advantageous and negative impacts and work with stakeholders and local governments.