Critical Reviews

Rachmat FAUZI | z5050434 Week 2 Post-Session Activity

Critical Review 1: Towards a more holistic approach to reducing the energy demands of dwellings André Stephan a,b,c, Robert H. Crawford c, Kristel de Myttenaere b a b

c

Aspirant du F.R.S-FNRS - Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research Fellow Building, Architecture and Town planning, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 50 Av.F.-D. Roosevelt, Brussels 1050, Belgium Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia

The article on households’ energy consumption (Stephan et.al. 2011) suggests that commonly, building’s energy assessment covers only a small part of the total energy use of a building life cycle. The tendency is that energy assessments merely analyse operating energy. Consequently, a more complete assessment method, including integration of indirect energy consumption into total calculation, is required to improve overall energy efficiency. The authors note that indirect energy consumption should include buildings’ embodied energy and transport energy spent by building occupants. Although several studies incorporating embodied energy have been undertaken to discover embodied vs operating energy ratio, the authors argue that there’s still a significant underestimation due to incomplete analysis process. There’s an implication that recent energy assessments are missing up to half of energy consumption over buildings’ lifespan. The authors recommend to use hybrid approaches (combination of process analysis and input-output analysis) to obtain a more accurate result. Transport energy (energy used by building occupants and goods to travel from and to their buildings) is also observed as a crucial factor to be included into buildings’ energy assessment. Two houses (suburban and city context) in Belgium are taken as case studies to validate indication that there are missing energy-quantification elements in universal assessment approach. Research questions proposed include: 1) Does operating energy represent the most major component of total building’s energy consumption over its life cycle?; and 2) What proportion do embodied and transport energies represent of total building’s life cycle energy consumption? (Stephan et.al. 2011). To investigate energy demand on both houses, the study divides total Life Cycle Energy (LCE) demands into 3 different components: Life Cycle Operational Energy (LCOE), Life Cycle Embodied Energy (LCEE), and Life Cycle Transport Energy (LCTE). In both suburban and city contexts, three different sets of energy performance are tested; passive house, low energy house with low space heating demand and standard condition complying with minimal energy efficiency requirements. The study reveals a result showing that in all cases, operational energy demand, including space heating demand, represents less than half of the total life cycle energy for 50 years of building life span (Stephan et.al. 2011). One of the most important finding to look at in this research is: in all cases, transport energy represents quite a significant share of the total life cycle energy (48-51% for the suburban context and 34-36% for city context). This numbers can still get even larger knowing that in this study, public transport has not been considered in its transport energy assessment. By adding transport energy to total Life Cycle Energy calculation, the percentage of operating energy is drastically reduced. However, the authors don't provide satisfying arguments on the urgency of integrating transport energy into energy assessment of buildings. Main argumentation proposed by the authors as a basis to integrate transport energy to total building energy assessment is solely relied on the fact that building users’ mobility consumes large amount of energy. Subjectivity still

SUSD0003 – Energy and the Built Environment

Page 1

Rachmat FAUZI | z5050434 occurs in quantifying transport energy due to its complexities. The authors themselves mention that many different factors are correlated to transport energy assessment: population density, urban mix, urban intensity, public transport availability and others (Stephan et.al. 2011, p.1035). Integrating transport energy to buildings’ life cycle energy assessment may also create a problem in quantifying energy consumption in transport sector in general. Transport accounts for approximately 19 % of global energy use (International Energy Agency 2009). If transport energy in relation to building occupants’ mobility is included into buildings sector analysis, it may cause a major change in the assessment of transport sector’s energy use. Discrepancies may occur related to limitations of research and scope of assessment on both sectors (buildings and transportation). Partial integration i.e. excluding public transport in the assessment is one of the key factors raising doubts in the effectiveness of taking transport energy assessment as part of buildings’ energy assessment. Kenworthy (2003) indicated that ‘the significant factors underlying automobile dependence and energy use include the extent and quality of the public transport system’. To avoid omission of public transports’ energy use, comprehensive studies in transport sector is required. Thus, taking partial portion of energy transport element into buildings energy assessment is questionable and can lead to confusion on division of roles between building energy evaluators and transport energy evaluators. It is more appropriate to observe transport energy as a city-wide or regional-wide field of research instead of building-scale one. Another important point missing in the article is CO2 emission in terms of how energy is generated. Buildings sector is responsible for one-third of total CO2 emission (International Energy Agency 2013) and transport sector accounts for almost one-quarter of global energy-related CO2 emission (International Energy Agency 2009). Although the article states that it aims to provide a holistic approach to energy demand assessment, it doesn’t mention the most important factor on how this demand is met which eventually comes from releasing CO2 emission.

References: International Energy Agency 2009, Transport, Energy and Co2: Moving toward Sustainability, IEA, Paris. International Energy Agency 2013, Transition to Sustainable Buildings Strategies and Opportunities to 2050, IEA, Paris. Kenworthy 2003, ‘Transport Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases in Urban Passenger Transport Systems: A Study of 84 Global Cities’, International Third Conference of the Regional Government Network for Sustainable Development, Notre Dame University, Fremantle, viewed 11 August 2015, http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/Documents/KenworthyTransportGreenhouse.pdf Stephan, A, Crawford, R, & Myttenaere, K 2011, ‘Towards a more holistic approach to reducing the energy demands of dwellings’, Procedia Engineering, vol. 21, pp. 1033 – 1041.

SUSD0003 – Energy and the Built Environment

Page 2

Rachmat FAUZI | z5050434 Week 3 Post-Session Activity

Critical Review 2: Benchmarking building performance: what can we learn from LEED? Dr Jeroen van der Heijden, Australian National University

Dr Jeroen van der Heijden (2014a) exposes his critical assessment on the performance of Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) as the most widely used green building rating tool in the world. Following pros and cons of his previous article on Green Star (Heijden 2014b), the analysis of LEED is intended as a benchmarking tool to balance both perspectives. Successfully having 20,000 projects certified in 135 different countries and areas around the world, LEED is regarded as the most influential benchmarking tool (USGBC 2013). Although LEED has accomplished 900 million sqm of built up space in US only, it has been suggested that this quantity is relative in terms of impacts created. Besides it covers merely 3 percent of total 32 billion sqm of US built-up space, LEED is used primarily in commercial buildings rather than residential buildings. Additional important evidence to look at is LEED managed to influence up to only 4 % of buildings developed since its first initiation in 1993. Taking it further, only 6 % of awarded LEED certificates are in LEED Platinum - its highest rank, meaning certificates are awarded mostly to its lower tiers. This leads to indication that the tool gives way for gaming. Several standards are easier to meet, as clearly stated by Carl Seville (2011) as “simple things to do” to cheat LEED for Homes certification. Criticism also emerges on the categorization of “as designed” and “as built” LEED certificates. It’s because once built, a building could be different to its original design. And once operated, the building may perform in a different way to what was expected at first. Although new “in operation” category is introduced recently, there is no guarantee to successfully raise awareness of people on the difference of these certification categories, having the previous certificates do not expire. There’s also no correlation between LEED credits awarded to a building and the actual building energy efficiency. A study by Newsham, Mancini and Birt (2009) demonstrates that from 100 LEED buildings surveyed, 28-35% of them used more energy than conventional buildings. The author gives Las Vegas casino as an example to stress the lack of holistic approach to urban sustainability context in an LEED-certified project. Furthermore, issues like transport and sustainable materials are still missed by LEED. In relation to government support, the author compares integration of LEED criteria into construction codes by the US government and the absence of this initiative applied to Green Star in Australian government. However, the author mentions that there are risks in incorporating particular rating tool into government construction regulations. For example, other tools will find it’s hard to compete with the government-chosen tool. Nevertheless, in both cases, governments require certain level of the local green building certification for their own buildings. Four lessons are concluded by the author. First, LEED is not widely applied in residential buildings compared to commercial buildings. Second, a danger of race to the bottom in standards is faced by LEED. Third, difficulties will occur for non-specialist to understand the true value between “as designed”, “as built” and “in operation” category. Fourth, low rates of application relate to lack of enthusiasm and leadership of the industry players. In general, the author delivers a rational judgement on LEED. It is reflected through coherent arguments presented to support his criticisms. Unfortunately, the author identifies rating tools as

SUSD0003 – Energy and the Built Environment

Page 3

Rachmat FAUZI | z5050434 products that can be marketed for many different parts of the world, as suggested in his point on competition between rating tools. Specific rating tool integration into construction code by the government is seen as a risk for other new incoming rating tools. By treating rating tools as competing products, the author misses an important point on the capacity of several different rating tools to adapt to local context. Considering different countries have their own unique local context, applying a specific rating tool which has been adapted to local context into local regulations is the best option. It is important to integrate specific rating tool to local construction codes instead of avoiding it on the basis of keeping competition open. By switching rating tools nature from voluntary to mandatory, application of green building rating tools could significantly be improved. A good example on adaptation of several different rating tools to local context is exhibited by Ali and Nsairat (2009) through their study in developing a green building assessment tool for Jordan. A rating tool developed in a country could not be applied directly in a different country as its social, environmental and economic settings are not similar.

References: Ali, H & Nsairat, S 2009, ‘Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries – Case of Jordan’, Building and Environment, vol.44 iss.5, pp. 1053-1064. Heijden, J 2014a, ‘Benchmarking building performance: what can we learn from LEED?’, The Fifth State, 7 April, viewed 20 August 2015, http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/spinifex/benchmarkingbuilding-performance-what-can-we-learn-from-leed/60984 Heijden, J 2014b, ‘Green building revolution? Only in high-end new CBD offices’, The Fifth State, 19 March, viewed 20 August 2015, http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/spinifex/green-buildingrevolution-only-in-high-end-new-cbd-offices/60436 Newsham, G, Mancini, S, & Birt, B 2009, ‘Do LEED-certified buildings save energy?’, Energy and Buildings, vol.41 Iss.8, pp. 897-905. Seville, Carl 2011, ‘How to Cheat* at LEED for Homes’, Green Building Advisor, 24 May, viewed 20 August 2015, http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/green-buildingcurmudgeon/how-cheat-leed-homes United States Green Building Council 2013, Infographic: LEED in the World, USGBC, Washington, viewed 20 August 2015, http://www.usgbc.org/articles/infographic-leed-world

SUSD0003 – Energy and the Built Environment

Page 4

Rachmat FAUZI | z5050434 Week 4 Post-Session Activity

Critical Review 3: Beyond Carbon Neutrality: Strategies for Reductive and Restorative Sustainability David Baggs In an article on built environment’s role in creating a sustainable future, David Baggs (2010) expands the idea of traditional reductive sustainability (3R: Reduce, Re-use, Recycle) to a more complete concept, restorative sustainability (5R: Reduce, Re-use, Recycle, Repair and Restore). By comparing the nature of reductive sustainability vs restorative sustainability, the author states that reductive sustainability approach is lacking the capacity of creating net positive impact due to its focus on reducing future negative impacts without rectifying past impacts. The author also argues that several available concepts e.g. Factor Four – Doing More with Less by Weizsäcker et. al., Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawkinds, and Biomimicry by Janine Benyus, are only covering discussions on reductive sustainability without having restorative solution. Baggs (2010) proposes the importance of taking restorative sustainability strategies to built environment context by presenting data on building sector’s enormous energy consumption. Parallel to a study by Stephan et.al. (2011), the article also emphasizes a significant measure of building’s embodied energy being largely ignored. As to explanation of reductive sustainability, Baggs (2010) provides a list of several reductive design strategies. Related to selection of materials, it is important to recognize materials with highest ecological and use them as priority. In terms of products life cycle, ‘industrial ecology’ introduced in the nineties and ‘cradle to cradle’ introduced by Mc Donough and Baungart in 2002, share a common vision of creating closed loop (waste = resource). Design for Disassembly (DfD) is a practise which eventually closing this loop. In regard to minimalizing buildings carbon footprint, Design for Climate (DfC) approach can be used. In terms of building lifespan, Design for Durability is not always a reductive sustainability practice as several durable materials have high embodied carbon and embodied energy. A calculation on carbon payback is thus required. Biomimicry (introduced by Janine Benyus in 1997) is seen by the author as a concept integrating ecological cycles in the making of a product rather than having restorative solutions. Efficiency is a key idea presented by ‘Factor Four’ concept brought by Weizsäcker et. al. in 1997. The author also mentions about the use of renewable materials with special attention to the ways they’re extracted, whether environmentally friendly or not. The last two strategies regarded as reductive sustainability initiatives by the author are identifying materials carbon ‘sinks’ (the ability to bind CO2 during materials use) and landfill mining (sourcing materials from landfill for recycling purpose). The author proposes restorative sustainability strategies as solutions to repair past negative impacts, and in some cases, to retain its reductive benefits as well. First approach presented by the author is the capacity of green roofs to restore natural biodiversity. Although more structural materials needed to support soil layers for roofing, Life Cycle Assessment can be done to ensure the building’s carbon performance over its life span. Second strategy is establishment of local indigenous biodiversity and creating new ecosystem in building sites and/or rooftops. Third, probiotic water treatment is a water purification method using microorganism capable of reducing pollutants and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). Forth, offsite tree planting is also regarded as a restorative strategy. Finally, the author concludes with an emphasis on changing effort to restorative sustainability strategies on the basis that reductive sustainability (3R) is not enough to create a condition where past negative impacts could be rectified.

SUSD0003 – Energy and the Built Environment

Page 5

Rachmat FAUZI | z5050434 To some extent, the author’s focus on ‘enhancing nature’ and generating new biodiversity and ecosystem as a key point of restorative sustainability could be associated with eco-centric logic of sustainable architecture as explained by Guy and Farmer (2001). It is interesting how the author could situate a specific logic (eco-centric) as a driving factor to implement other logics (for example: eco-technic) demonstrated by different strategies and approaches. Instead of taking these logics as competing entities, they can be supporting one to another instead. Another interesting view in this article is the inclusion of offsite tree planting as an example of restorative sustainability approach. As the author states, it is a commonly-used tool to reduce carbon emission of a built environment. However, this carbon offset method is considered as dubious and controversial in terms of its environmental effectiveness (Downie 2007). Primary concern is that there’s no guarantee that the planted trees will not be cut down in the future. In addition, there’s a major question on the ability of forestry offsets to generate ‘additional’ emission reductions. A special report on land use and forestry (IPCC 2000) states that there is a limited number of scientific literature to support analysis on forestry offsets additionality to carbon emission reductions.

References Baggs, D 2010, ‘Beyond Carbon Neutrality: Strategies for Reductive and Restorative Sustainability’, Environment Design Guide, No.64, pp. 1-9, viewed 25 August 2015, http://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=858328802157342;res=IELHSS Downie, C 2007, ‘Carbon Offsets: Saviour or Cop-out?’, The Australia Institute, viewed 27 August 2015, http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP107.pdf Guy, S & Simon, F 2001, ‘Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology’, Journal of Architectural Education, vol.54 no.3, pp. 140-148 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2000, Land-use, Land-use Change, and Forestry, viewed 27 August 2015, https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/srl-en.pdf Stephan, A, Crawford, R, & Myttenaere, K 2011, ‘Towards a more holistic approach to reducing the energy demands of dwellings’, Procedia Engineering, vol. 21, pp. 1033 – 1041.

SUSD0003 – Energy and the Built Environment

Page 6