European Commission
Directorate-General Environment
Topical Paper 2: Strategies for decoupling options to consider in the field of buildings and
infrastructure
Date
13 March 2013
Author(s)
PE International
Number of
appendices
2
Study name
Assessment of Scenarios and Options
towards a Resource Efficient Europe
Study number ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
Disclaimer: The information contained in this report does not necessarily
represent the position or opinion of the European Commission.
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
2 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
Executive Summary
The purpose of this paper is to propose improvement options to help decouple the social
goods obtained from Europe’s built environment—need satisfaction, economic value,
aesthetics, etc.—from the resource use and corresponding environmental impacts associated
with its construction, maintenance, use and demolition. As environmental impacts are driven
by both resource use and waste emissions, this paper considers resource use indicators and
emission-related indicators together. To help focus the discussion, this paper and subsequent
analyses consider only the most significant components of the built environment by resource
use and land coverage, i.e. residential buildings, commercial buildings (particularly offices,
retail and wholesale) and roads. Building services (particularly heating, cooling and lighting)
are included in this scope, but not appliances or furniture.
To assist with the selection of improvement options, this paper presents a hotspot analysis of
Europe’s built environment. Figure 1-1 provides an overview of the impacts of the United
Kingdom's built environment over a range of resource use and emissions indicators.
Comparable data could not be obtained for Europe as a whole. As can be seen, use of
buildings accounts for more than 50% of the impacts in all categories except abiotic depletion
(elements), with the use of domestic buildings more significant than use of non-domestic
buildings. While there is variation across Europe, it is expected that charts for other European
countries would be broadly comparable to Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1: Division of environmental impacts by life cycle stage across the UK’s built environment
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Use (non-domestic)
30%
Use (domestic)
20%
Construction
10%
Material production
0%
The European Commission’s Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe aims that “[by]
2020…all new buildings will be nearly zero-energy and highly material efficient” (EC, 2011,
pp. 18-19). Given the dominance of the use stage, energy efficiency in the use of the built
environment has been and continues to be a significant target for research and policy. Rather
than repeating the work of past studies such as IMPRO-Building (Nemry, et al., 2008), this
project instead focuses on material efficiency and energy efficiency in the production and
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
3 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
end-of-life stages. As Figure 1-1 highlights, energy consumed during the use stage must
continue to be a top priority for policy. However, the focus of this project is on the “highly
material efficient” aspect of the European Commission’s aim, not the “nearly zero-energy”
aspect. To ensure that material efficiency gains do not lead to burden shifting between life
cycle stages, this project takes a full life cycle perspective. Perhaps most importantly, material
efficiency gains must not be achieved by sacrificing performance in the use stage.
An initial list of 110 possible improvement options was compiled by built environment experts
from PE International during a brainstorming session in May 2012. This paper presents both
the “long list” and a shortlist of these options. It then presents the improvement options
recommended by stakeholders at a workshop in September 2012. Finally, the stakeholder
and expert recommendations are combined to define a set of 10 improvement options (or
packages of similar options) to be taken forward into detailed analysis in the next phase of
this project.
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 defines the scope. Section 3 reviews hotspots
of resource use and environmental impact in Europe’s built environment. Section 4 identifies
the improvement options. Section 5 outlines next steps in order to assess the improvement
potential of these options from a “bottom-up” perspective. Annex 2 presents the first sections
of the factsheets for the 10 recommended improvement options.
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
4 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
Contents
1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 6
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
Scope ................................................................................................................................. 7
Sectors of the built environment ......................................................................................... 7
Indicators of resource use and environmental impact ....................................................... 8
Life cycle stages ................................................................................................................. 9
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
Resource use and environmental impact hotspots in Europe’s built environment 11
Environmental impacts of final consumption at the European scale................................ 11
Resource use hotspots..................................................................................................... 12
Understanding hotspots within the built environment ...................................................... 15
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Improvement options ..................................................................................................... 18
Decoupling strategies ....................................................................................................... 18
Translating hotspots into improvement options ............................................................... 18
Improvement options recommended by PE’s built environment experts ......................... 21
Improvement options recommended by PE’s built environment experts which do not
explicitly target energy use in the use stage of buildings ................................................. 22
4.5 Improvement options recommended by stakeholders ..................................................... 24
4.6 Comparison of stakeholder and expert improvement options.......................................... 25
4.7 Improvement options to be taken into detailed analysis .................................................. 26
5
Description of approach for further work .................................................................... 27
6
References ...................................................................................................................... 28
7
Annex 1: All improvement options considered .......................................................... 30
8 Annex 2: Example factsheets ....................................................................................... 33
8.1 Design for Deconstruction ................................................................................................ 33
8.2 Improve maintenance and replacement and enhance durability ..................................... 34
8.3 Increase recycling of waste at end-of-life ......................................................................... 34
8.4 Increasing the renovation rate .......................................................................................... 35
8.5 Increase use of secondary / recycled materials ............................................................... 35
8.6 Intensify use of buildings .................................................................................................. 36
8.7 Reduce land used by the built environment (intensification)............................................ 36
8.8 Reduce production of construction waste ........................................................................ 37
8.9 Select materials with low embodied energy, water and abiotic depletion potential ......... 37
8.10 Use materials more efficiently .......................................................................................... 38
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
Abbreviations
ADP
Abiotic resource depletion potential
AP
Acidification potential
BAT
Best available techniques
BREF
BAT reference document
CFL
Compact fluorescent lamp
EC
European Commission
EIPRO
Environmental impact of products study
EP
Eutrophication potential
EPD
Environmental product declaration
ETP
Eco-toxicity potential
EU-27
European Union of 27 Member States
FSC
Forest Stewardship Council
GFA
Gross floor area
GWP
Global warming potential
HTP
Human toxicity potential
HVAC
Heating, ventilation and air conditioning
IEA
International Energy Agency
IMPRO
Environmental improvement of products studies
LED
Light-emitting diode
LCA
Life cycle assessment
MEPS
Minimum energy performance standards
MFA
Material flow analysis
ODP
Ozone layer depletion potential
PED
Primary energy demand
PEFC
Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification
PFA
Pulverised fuel ash
POCP
Photochemical oxidation formation potential (summer smog)
PS
Polystyrene
PU
Polyurethane
PVC
Polyvinyl chloride
TMR
Total material requirement
UK
United Kingdom
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
5 / 38
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
6 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
1
Introduction
The European Commission’s Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (“the Roadmap”), a
core part of the Europe 2020 Strategy, identifies the built environment as one of its three focal
areas for resource efficiency improvements alongside nutrition and mobility. According to the
Roadmap, buildings alone account for 42% of the EU’s energy consumption, 35% of its
greenhouse gas emissions and 50% of its extracted materials (EC, 2011, p. 18). To help
achieve improvement, the Roadmap defines the following milestones:
By 2020 the renovation and construction of buildings and infrastructure will be made to
high resource efficiency levels. The Life-cycle approach will be widely applied; all new
buildings will be nearly zero-energy and highly material efficient, and policies for
renovating the existing building stock will be in place so that it is cost-efficiently
refurbished at a rate of 2% per year. 70% of non-hazardous construction and demolition
waste will be recycled. (EC, 2011, pp. 18-19)
The purpose of this paper is to propose a list of improvement options to help decouple the
social goods obtained from the built environment—need satisfaction, economic value,
aesthetics, etc.—from the resource use and corresponding environmental impacts associated
with its construction, maintenance, use and demolition. Selection of these options should
consider not only their improvement potential at the product or project scale, but also whether
they target a hotspot of resource use or environmental impact at the European scale. This
makes it more likely that they will offer significant improvement potential when scaled up.
Section 2 of this paper defines the sectors, environmental indicators and life cycle stages
considered. Section 3 identifies hotspots of resource use and environmental impact caused
by the built environment at the European level. Section 4 identifies the improvement options.
Section 5 outlines next steps in order to assess the improvement potential of these options
from a “bottom-up” perspective.
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
7 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
2 Scope
2.1
Sectors of the built environment
In the year 2000, the EU-27 had a population of 483 million and a stock of approximately 200
1
2
million dwellings. In 2011, the EU-27 had approximately 24 billion m of useable floor space
(BPIE, 2011, p. 27), excluding floor space for specialist utility buildings. Of this, 75% was
residential and 25% was non-residential (p. 30). As can be seen in Figure 2-1, single-family
houses (detached, semi-detached and terraced) dominate the residential market while
wholesale, retail and office space collectively dominate the non-residential market.
Figure 2-1: Residential and non-residential floor space in the EU-27 in 2011 (BPIE, 2011)
Wholesale & retail (28%)
Offices (23%)
Educational (17%)
Hotels & restaurants (11%)
Hospitals (7%)
Sport facilities (4%)
Other (11%)
Residential
75%
Non-residential
25%
Single family houses (64%)
Apartment blocks (36%)
Figure 2-1 excludes roads, railways and other infrastructure. As different statistics are held for
buildings than for other infrastructure, it is difficult to present them alongside one another.
One metric that can be used is total land coverage. Due to differences in reporting within
Europe, England has been used as an example in Figure 2-2 below. This chart highlights that
roads occupy slightly more land than all buildings combined (when residential gardens are
excluded) while rail and footpaths occupy relatively little land.
Figure 2-2: Land use by type in England in 2005 (ONS, 2007)
2,60%
1,40% 4,27%
87,47%
8,54%
1,14%
0,66%
2,23%
0,14%
0,11%
1
Green space
Water
Other
Residential gardens
Residential
Non-residential
Road
Rail
Path
The exact number of dwellings is difficult to estimate as member states treat vacant and secondary dwellings
differently. This figure was calculated based upon tables 1.1 and 3.3 of Dol and Haffner (2010).
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
8 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
Another metric for examining the significance of infrastructure is the share of building
products they use. Construction aggregates (i.e. crushed stone, sand and gravel) are
materials used in virtually all parts of the built environment. As can be seen in Figure 2-3,
buildings collectively account for 65% of European consumption of aggregates while other
infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) collectively account for 35%. It is important to recognise,
however, that aggregates are one of the main materials which make up roads, bridges, etc.
whereas many other materials (e.g. wood, glass and plastics) are also used in the
construction of buildings.
Figure 2-3: Share of construction aggregates by end use (UEPG, 2011, p. 7)
Residential buildings
20%
25%
Commercial buildings (offices, warehouses, etc.)
Social buildings (hospitals, schools, etc.)
15%
20%
20%
Roads, runways, railways, waterways
Other infrastructure (bridges, harbours, etc.)
Based upon this review, this paper and the remainder of this project will focus on three
sectors of the built environment:
1. Residential buildings, which occupy three times more floor space than nonresidential buildings in the EU-27 (Figure 2-1);
2. Commercial buildings, particularly retail, wholesale and office buildings as they
collectively occupy more than 50% of the total non-residential floor space (Figure 2-1)
and are broadly representative of other non-residential buildings, e.g. schools; and
3. Roads, as the most significant example of other infrastructure, e.g. roads in England
occupy more than 15 times the land of rail and slightly more land than residential and
non-residential buildings combined (excluding residential gardens; see Figure 2-2).
Specialist utility buildings such as water treatment plants and power stations will not be
included due to their relatively small share of the built environmental overall. However, it is
expected that parts of the work on commercial buildings will also be applicable to them.
2.2
Indicators of resource use and environmental impact
Environmental impacts are driven by both extraction of resources and emissions of wastes.
The UNEP (2011, p. xvii) classifies resources into four broad groups: materials, water, energy
and land. Emissions can be categorised in various ways, e.g. by environmental compartment
(air, soil, water). As emissions are a by-product of resource use, improvements in resource
efficiency will generally lead to lower total emissions. However, as some emissions are more
environmentally harmful than others, it is important that resource efficiency improvements are
not achieved by substituting processes with environmentally benign emissions for those with
harmful emissions. To help minimise the potential for burden-shifting, this paper recommends
the suite of indicators in Table 2-1 below. This includes the impact assessment indicators
required by international standard EN 15804:2012, Sustainability of construction works (CEN,
2012) supplemented by indicators for energy, water and land. Toxicity is an environmental
impact with potential relevance to the built environment (see Figure 3-1), but there remains
little consensus on robust and consistent indicators and toxicity indicators will not be
evaluated. Releases of toxic emissions from European industry are well regulated by the
Industrial Emissions Directive and therefore this is not considered to be a significant
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
9 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
omission. While included in this study, it is important to note that land use indicators within life
cycle assessment (LCA) are not yet fully developed.
Table 2-1: Indicators of resource use and waste emissions applied in this project
Concern
Materials
Water
Energy
Land
Emissions
2.3
Indicator
Abiotic depletion potential (ADP), elements
Abiotic depletion potential (ADP), fossil fuels
Blue water consumption
Primary energy demand (PED)
Land occupation
Land transformation
Global warming potential (GWP)
Acidification potential (ADP)
Eutrophication potential (EP)
Photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP)
Ozone depletion potential (ODP)
Methodology
CML 2010 baseline
MJ net calorific value
Freshwater losses at a
watershed level (i.e. water
used - water replaced)
MJ net calorific value
(LBP, 2010)
(LBP, 2010)
CML 2010 baseline
CML 2010 baseline
CML 2010 baseline
CML 2010 baseline
CML 2010 baseline
Life cycle stages
Figure 2-4 presents an indicative guide to the impacts of two variants of a German
commercial building—one conventional and one net-zero energy—over an assumed 50 year
life. The area of each pie represents the relative amounts of energy used over the lifetime.
Figure 2-4 (a) clearly illustrates that the use stage of the conventional building dominates,
accounting for almost two thirds of total energy consumption. Production (of building products
and of the building itself) is the next most significant life cycle stage. Transport of materials to
the site and landfill/recycling of demolition waste have little significance. For the equivalent
net-zero energy building in Figure 2-4(b), production dominates, followed by maintenance
(including replacement of materials and their disposal) of the building over its useful life.
Figure 2-4: Primary energy demand (non-renewable) of (a) a conventional office building and (b) the
corresponding similar net-zero energy building over 50 years (source: PE International)
3%
(a)
(b)
Production /
materials
8%
10%
25%
25%
0%
2%
Energy in use
dominates
60%
Transport to
site
63%
5%
Production
dominates
Use stage
(energy)
Use stage
(materials)
Deposit /
recycling
The Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe aims that “[by] 2020…all new buildings will be
nearly zero-energy and highly material efficient” (EC, 2011, pp. 18-19). Given the dominance
of the use stage, energy efficiency in use has been and continues to be a significant target for
research and policy. Rather than repeating the work of past studies such as IMPRO-Building
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
10 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
(Nemry, et al., 2008), this project instead focuses on material efficiency and energy efficiency
in the production and end-of-life stages. However, to avoid burden shifting, improvement
options recommended in these areas must not negatively affect the use stage.
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
11 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
3 Resource use and environmental impact hotspots in
Europe’s built environment
The purpose of this section is to identify the largest contributors to the resource use and
environmental impacts of Europe’s built environment (the “hotspots”). One of the most
comprehensive studies at the European scale is Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO)
(Tukker, et al., 2006). However, EIPRO focused primarily on environmental impacts and not
resource use (with the exception of fossil fuels). It also focused on final demand, making it
difficult to separate the impacts of residential and commercial buildings. To address this, this
section draws information on hotspots from a range of sources and then constructs an LCA
for the built environment in the United Kingdom as a way to bring this information together.
3.1
Environmental impacts of final consumption at the European scale
The potential environmental impacts of the built environment across its full life cycle—
including construction, use and end-of-life—are shown below in Figure 3-1 as a percentage of
total impact of the EU-25. Because data are taken from the EIPRO study (Tukker, et al.,
2006), which used total domestic final demand as a functional unit, only the impacts of
residential buildings and residential demand on water and road infrastructure are shown. The
impacts of commercial and utility buildings and commercial use of public infrastructure are
included as part of services to final consumers, e.g. healthcare or professional services, and
cannot easily be shown in the chart. The impacts of appliances, furniture and other products
used within buildings have been excluded as they relate to other aspects of consumer
behaviour not linked to the built environment and are outside the scope of this project.
Figure 3-1: Cradle-to-grave environmental impacts of the built environment in the EU-25 using a functional unit
of domestic final demand and categories based on COICOP (Tukker, et al., 2006)
Contribution to total impact within the EU
30%
25%
20%
Road infrastructure
Water infrastructure
15%
Lighting
Heating
10%
Renovation & repair
New build
5%
0%
ADP
GWP
ODP HTP
ETP POCP AP
Environmental impact indicator
EP
The environmental indicators included in the EIPRO study were abiotic resource depletion
potential (ADP), global warming potential (GWP), ozone layer depletion potential (ODP),
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
12 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
human toxicity potential (HTP), eco-toxicity potential (ETP), photochemical ozone creation
potential (POCP), acidification potential (AP) and eutrophication potential (EP). The measure
of ADP used in EIPRO provides an indicator of material use, though the methodology chosen
is dominated by use of fossil fuels (Tukker, et al., 2006, p. 67). There is no energy indicator,
though GWP serves as a reasonable proxy in the current fossil-fuelled economy. While EP is
an indicator of water pollution, there is no indicator of water consumption. There is also no
indicator of land use. Despite these limitations, the EIPRO results serve as a helpful starting
point to understand the relative significance of different aspects of the built environment
throughout the EU.
From Figure 3-1, it is clear that both new-build construction and renovation/repair projects
have significant impacts across all reported environmental impact categories. Space heating
is also extremely important, especially for ADP where it dominates. The remaining categories
that can be considered solely as part of the built environment (and not another category like
nutrition) are lighting, water infrastructure and road infrastructure. While the impact of the first
two is noticeable, road infrastructure appears to have very little impact at the European scale.
However, due to the choice of private consumption as a functional unit, it is difficult to gauge
the significance of commercial use of public water and transport infrastructure.
EIPRO provides an excellent overview of environmental impacts but, for the purpose of this
project, it must be supplemented by additional resource use indicators. The next section
presents resource use hotspots structured using the UNEP’s (2011, p. xvii) classification of
materials, water, energy and land. The final section brings this together using LCA.
3.2
Resource use hotspots
3.2.1 Materials
In 1997, the total material requirement (TMR) of the EU-15 was approximately 50 tonnes of
materials per person (Moll, Bringezu, & Schütz, 2003, p. 36). TMR is an unweighted sum of
all resources extracted to meet demand within a given economy, including those needed to
produce imports but excluding water and air. As can be seen in Figure 3-2, the largest
contributors to TMR in 1997 were fossil fuels (28%), metals (23%) and construction minerals
(18%), collectively accounting for more than two thirds of material use on a mass basis.
Please note that the significance of metals is due to TMR measuring the mass of material
extracted, including not only the metal ore but also overburden and tailings.
Figure 3-2: Composition of the TMR of the EU-15 in 1997 (Moll, Bringezu, & Schütz, 2003, p. 36)
6% 3%
9%
1%
28%
12%
18%
23%
Fossil fuels
Metals
Construction minerals
Biomass
Erosion
Excavation & dredging
Industrial minerals
Others (imports)
The built environment is a significant end user of materials, notably aggregates, cement,
refined bitumen, limestone, wood, clay, glass, polymers (PVC, PS, PU, resins), metals (steel,
aluminium, copper) and natural fibres (see Nemry et al., 2008, p. 4 for a list of common
materials in buildings). Table 3-1 provides a summary of the share of these materials sold
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
13 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
directly to the construction sector. Actual consumption may be higher as the final use for
many intermediate products, e.g. limestone for use in cement, is the built environment.
Table 3-1: Share of production for key raw materials sold directly for use in buildings and infrastructure
Material
Aggregates
Cement
Refined
bitumen
Limestone
Wood
Clay
Glass
PVC
Steel
Aluminium
Copper
Share of direct production
96%
97% incl. sales to government
>60% for buildings and dwellings
95%
Region
UK
USA
Europe
Global
Year
2003
2009
2000
2007
78% (91% incl. cement)
59% incl. furniture (due to data)
58% by value added
80% flat glass
57% (profiles, pipes, flooring)
38% (construction, structural)
26%
33% (48% incl. power, telecoms)
UK
Europe
EU-27
Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe
Global
2004
2009
2006
-2010
2011
2010
2009
Source
(BGS, 2012)
(USGS, 2011, p. 16.20)
(Brodkom, 2000, p. 77)
(Asphalt Institute &
Eurobitume, 2011, p. 2)
(BGS, 2006, p. 3)
(UNECE, 2010, p. 1)
(Eurostat, 2012)
(Glass for Europe, 2012)
(Vinyl 2010, 2011, p. 11)
(Eurofer, 2012, p. 8)
(EAA, 2012)
(ICSG, 2010, p. 46)
As construction aggregates and cement are used almost exclusively in the built environment,
Figure 3-3 provides additional detail on the intermediate- and end-uses of European
aggregates. As can be seen, for these bulk materials there is a reasonably even split between
residential buildings, commercial buildings, public buildings and transportation infrastructure
with other uses (e.g. offshore pipeline stabilisation) playing a more minor role.
Figure 3-3: Supply and demand of construction aggregates across Europe (UEPG, 2011, p. 7)
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
14 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
3.2.2 Water
In 2002, total withdrawal of ground and surface freshwater (“blue” water) in the EU-27 was
3
3
approximately 247 billion m , or 510 m per person (Dworak, et al., 2007, p. 16). Of this, 44%
was withdrawn for energy production, 24% for agriculture, 17% for public water supply and
15% for industry. Over the period 1996-2005, the blue water footprint of the EU-27 averaged
3
2
3
135 m /year per capita, slightly less than the global average of 153 m /year per capita
(Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2011, pp. 1-3, Appendix IX). This is significantly lower than the blue
water withdrawal as non-consumptive uses are excluded, e.g. cooling water used in power
stations that is released back into the same watershed from which it was extracted.
When rain water (“green” water) and water required to dilute pollutants in waste water to
agreed quality standards (“grey” water) are included, the EU-27 average climbs to 1730
3
3
m /year per capita, higher than the global average of 1385 m /year per capita (Mekonnen &
Hoekstra, 2011, p. 26). While consumption of green water is important, as rain is what
ultimately drives replacement of water in surface and ground reservoirs, direct uptake of
rainwater by plants is a “free good” in that it is not managed through direct human
intervention. Surface and ground freshwater reservoirs, on the other hand, are managed by
society and are therefore potentially of greater interest. For these reasons, only blue water
will be considered in this paper and subsequent analysis.
To better understand the significance of water embodied in the construction of buildings,
McCormack et al. (2007) used hybrid input-output analysis to calculate the embodied water of
17 case study buildings in Australia, one residential and 16 non-residential. They found that
3
2
their embodied water consumption was between 5 and 20 m per m gross floor area (GFA).
Most of this water was embodied in the materials used, such as steel, concrete and carpet;
very little water was consumed in the construction process itself. For the one residential
2
2
building, a high-rise with GFA of 10 600 m , embodied water was 11.2 m³ per m GFA. To put
this into perspective, assuming that liveable floor area is 80% of GFA (i.e. excluding walls, lift
shafts, stairwells, corridors and other communal areas), and given that an average European
2
apartment has approximately 31 m of floor space per capita (BPIE, 2011, p. 9), this equates
to approximately 430 m³ per person from production of the building.
3.2.3 Energy
The Commission has set the target to improve the EU’s energy efficiency by 20% by 2020
(EC, 2010, p. 11). As buildings collectively accounted for 41% of final energy consumption
within the EU in 2010 (27% residential vs. 14% non-residential) (Lapillonne, Sebi, & Pollier,
2012), they represent a key hotspot to investigate for energy-efficiency improvements.
For residential buildings in the EU-27 in 2009, energy can be further broken down into space
heating (68%), water heating (12%), lighting (3%), domestic appliances (12%) and cooking
(4%) (Lapillonne, Sebi, & Pollier, 2012). 83% of this energy is associated with the building
itself (heating, cooling, lighting) and is therefore within scope of this paper. Of this 83%, space
and water heating clearly dominate and therefore present the largest opportunity for
reduction, making them a prime target for improvement measures.
3.2.4 Land
Despite the intensive use of land within Europe, the built environment (residential, nonresidential, transport networks and infrastructure) directly accounts for only 3.6% of Europe’s
total land area (Figure 3-4). European land use is dominated by forest (35%), arable land
2
This figure was calculated from Appendix IX of Mekonnen & Hoekstra (2011) as a sum of the water footprints
of the EU-27 Member States weighted by their population in 2005.
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
15 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
(25%) and pasture (17%). Due to the use of timber in buildings, the built environment’s
indirect share of total land use will be considerably higher than its direct use; however, it is
3
still likely to fall below 25%. Land use is dominated by agriculture, mostly for food production.
Figure 3-4: Composition of land by type within Europe (EEA, 2010, p. 10)
Forest
17%
Arable land
8%
Pasture
6%
2%
3%
Semi-natural vegetation
3%
4%
25%
Open/bare soil
Wetlands
Water bodies
35%
0,5%
0,1%
0,2%
Housing, recreation
Industrial & commercial
Transport, infrastructure
Mines, quarries, waste
3.3
Understanding hotspots within the built environment
In order to compare and rank improvement options, the hotspots identified in the previous
section need to be further disaggregated and also supplemented by emissions information.
However, as most bottom-up process LCA studies do not consider all indicators in Table 2-1
(often omitting water and land use) and most top-down economic input-output studies lack the
resolution to translate these hotspots to specific products or specific activities in the built
environment (see Topical Paper 1), it is difficult to do this on the basis of past studies alone.
To address this, an LCA model has been created for the UK’s built environment in a single
year. Detailed data on consumption of building products were obtained from a material flow
analysis (MFA) for the UK construction industry conducted by Viridis (Smith, Kersey, &
Griffiths, 2003). While this study contains some information on the construction stage,
updates were made for water (Waylen, 2011), energy (BERR, 2008) and construction waste
(Adams, 2010). As no other data were available, it was assumed that 10% of water used onsite evaporates while the remaining 90% enters the municipal wastewater treatment system.
For the use stage, energy data from BERR (2008) were used as they separate building
services (e.g. heating, cooling and lighting) from energy uses excluded from this study (e.g.
appliances). Use stage water data are from Defra (2008). It was assumed that 3% of water in
the use stage evaporates while the remaining 97% enters the municipal wastewater treatment
system. This was based on a typical percentage of water used for cooking and drinking in
Europe based on the review of Aquaterra (2008). The Viridis study was for 1998, but the
construction and use data are from 2000 to 2008. While the Viridis data is for the built
environment as a whole, the use data only includes residential and commercial buildings.
Specialist utility buildings such as power stations have been excluded as they are outside the
scope of this study. The significance of this slight difference in boundary is expected to be low
as there are relatively few of these buildings.
Figure 3-5 presents the impacts by indicator and life cycle stage. As can be seen, the use
stage contributes more than 50% to all indicators except ADP elements where the production
of building materials is the largest contributor. The material production stage includes the
3
Direct + indirect land = 3.6% + (35% land forested × 59% wood products for building). This does not include
land used for fibres (carpet, drapes, etc.). However, it over-estimates forest impacts by assuming all are felled.
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
16 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
production of all building products and accounts for recycled content at the rates specified as
standard practice by WRAP (2008). The construction stage includes all site-related impacts,
including construction, refurbishment, demolition and disposal and incineration of waste. It is
important to note that the impacts of manufacturing all products that go to site are have been
included in the material production stage. This includes site waste of at least 10% for most
building products (BRE, 2008). For this reason, the construction stage is almost insignificant
in Figure 3-5 except in EP, GWP and POCP which are due to landfill and incineration of wood
waste. Land indicators have been temporarily excluded from Figure 3-5 as there are a
number of open methodological issues with these indicators that must first be resolved.
Figure 3-5: Division of environmental impacts per annum by life cycle stage across the UK’s built environment
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Material production
Construction
Use (domestic)
Use (non-domestic)
Figure 3-6 subdivides material production impacts by material group, illustrating substantial
variation between indicators. Metals contribute more than 50% to ADP elements, with most of
this due to copper use. They also contribute significantly to all other impact categories except
land occupation. Plastics are less significant than metals in most indicators; however, their
total mass is approximately one third that of metals. Bituminous materials have a significant
impact in most categories as they are used in large quantities. However, despite this large
impact, bitumen is essentially a waste product that would otherwise be discarded. Its
significance may also be overstated because this study allocated the impacts of petroleum
refining by calorific value. While this is the standard approach of the GaBi life cycle inventory
database used for the modelling, allocation by economic value would show different results.
Cement production has a significant impact in all indicators due to its high energy use. The
aggregates bound by this cement have very little impact except in water consumption where
they are the largest single contributor, most probably due to evaporation of water used for
dust suppression and washing. Paints have a reasonably significant contribution. This is most
noticeable for land transformation; however, it should be noted that land indicators within LCA
are underdeveloped so this result may be overstated. As would be expected, wood products
contribute significantly to land occupation. Their negative GWP is due to absorption of CO2
during tree growth. Rerelease of this carbon is spread over maintenance and demolition of
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
17 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
the building where they are used and also the life cycles of other buildings when this wood is
reused or recycled into building products, e.g. particleboard. Glass and worked stone
contribute significantly to acidification and eutrophication potential, but have less impact
elsewhere. Plaster has a noticeable impact on water consumption and land occupation, but
smaller contributions elsewhere. Clay and clay products (e.g. bricks) have a similar profile,
but contribute large shares to PED and GWP as the clay must be fired. Insulation has little
significance in any category except ADP elements where it is a minor contributor.
Figure 3-6: Environmental impacts associated with the consumption of construction products within the UK’s
built environment in 1998
100%
Secondary materials
Recycled materials
Reclaimed materials
80%
Wood & wood products
Stone, worked
Plastics
60%
Paints & fillers
Metals
Insulation
Gypsum & gypsum products
40%
Glass, flat & block
Electrical
Clay & clay products
20%
Cement, concrete & products
Bituminous materials
Aggregates
Land transformation
Land occupation
PED
POCP
ODP
GWP
EP
AP
ADP fossil
Water consumption
-20%
ADP elements
Mass
0%
-40%
The UK was selected for this case study purely due to the existence of a detailed material
flow analysis. Unfortunately, a similar level of detail could not be found for Europe as a whole.
As illustrated in Topical Paper 1, there are large variations in resource use between countries
(e.g. in timber use) so it is difficult to know how much these findings can be generalised.
However, they nonetheless represent a relatively complete picture for a large European
country and as such provide a useful indication of the resource use and potential
environmental impact hotspots of the built environment.
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
18 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
4 Improvement options
While the size of the impacts in the previous section may help to exclude consumption
categories that are too small at the European scale for large improvements to be achieved,
they say nothing about improvement potential. This section first presents general strategies
that can be used to decouple the impacts of the built environment from the social goods it
provides. It then briefly reviews studies which recommend improvement options. Next, it lists
a range of improvement options and provides rankings based on expert and stakeholder
opinion. Finally, these two rankings are combined in order to define a shortlist of improvement
options that will be carried forward into more detailed analysis.
4.1
Decoupling strategies
The UNEP (2011, p. 4) report on decoupling distinguishes between ‘resource decoupling’, i.e.
“reducing the rate of use of (primary) resources per unit of economic activity”, and ‘impact
decoupling’, i.e. “increasing economic output while reducing negative environmental impacts”.
It also draws the now-common distinction between ‘relative decoupling’, i.e. growth in
resource use and/or environmental impact is slower than economic growth but still increases
in absolute terms, and ‘absolute decoupling’, i.e. resource use and/or environmental impact
declines in absolute terms in spite of economic growth (p. 5).
These distinctions raise a number of important points. Firstly, reducing resource intensity and
environmental impact per unit of economic activity is not necessarily sufficient to achieve
absolute reductions in either area. Secondly, decoupling must be continuous if it is to
overcome continued economic growth. Thirdly, as not all resources have equal environmental
impacts (e.g. 1 kg gold ≠ 1 kg sand), decreasing total resource throughput is only a viable
decoupling strategy if the impacts of the combined mix of resources is also considered.
Strategies for decoupling can be thought of as lying on a continuum between purely supplyside measures and purely demand-side measures. Supply-side measures are primarily
concerned with increasing efficiency and using low-impact materials. Demand-side measures
are primarily concerned with purchasing low-impact products/services and increasing quality
of life through non-material means. Measures that meet an existing need in a different way
provide the middle-ground in that they affect both supply and demand. This paper considers
five broad strategies ranging from purely supply-side (1) to purely demand-side (5):
1. Produce existing products/services more efficiently, i.e. reduce the inputs
required to produce a given output, e.g. by optimising the mix of fuel and oxygen
during combustion so that a fuel burns more completely;
2. Intensify use of existing products, e.g. through sharing and life extension;
3. Meet the same need in a less impactful way, e.g. redefine ‘space heating’ as
‘personal heating’ (the actual need) and produce products for ‘personal heating’;
4. Shift expenditure to less impactful products, e.g. purchase better insulation rather
than a new space heater; and
5. Reduce demand without decreasing quality of life, e.g. walk children to school
rather than driving.
4.2
Translating hotspots into improvement options
When considering improvement measures, it is important to recognise that Europe has a
mature built environment consisting of buildings and infrastructure with long and uncertain
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
19 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
service lives (Dol & Haffner, 2010, p. 8). For example, the number of new residential buildings
added across the EU-15 in 2003 was approximately 1% of the total stock (Nemry, et al.,
2008, p. 9). This compares to approximately 5% in China across all building types (Wang,
2006). Assuming, for the sake of simplicity, that each new building in Europe replaces an old
building and there is no change in the total size of the stock, it would take at least 100 years
to replace all existing buildings. This makes it clear that renovation measures are necessary
to achieve significant environmental improvements within the next few decades.
The importance of targeting the existing building stock does not mean that new buildings
should be ignored. It simply means that the effects of measures targeting new buildings will
take longer to be felt at the European level. Introducing stricter requirements for new buildings
is one of the most cost-effective methods to reduce environmental impacts as these
measures can be included during design. Some improvements are already taking place and,
as a general rule, new buildings have better environmental performance than older buildings
(Nemry, et al., 2008, p. xviii).
The paragraphs which follow review improvement potentials suggested by other studies. The
important points from these studies are then combined with suggestions from the authors and
presented as a range of initial improvement potentials later in this section.
4.2.1 Improvement potentials from the IMPRO-Building study
The Environmental Improvement Potentials of Residential Buildings (IMPRO-Building) study
sought to present a “systematic overview of the environmental life cycle impacts of residential
buildings in EU-25 … [and] an analysis of the technical improvement options that could [help
to reduce] these environmental impacts” (Nemry, et al., 2008, p. iii). As stated in the title, its
focus was residential buildings only as the most significant building type (see section 2.1).
The indicators it considered were acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP),
global warming potential (GWP), ozone layer depletion potential (ODP) and photochemical
ozone creation potential (POCP).
For existing buildings, where the construction impacts have already occurred, the key areas
to reduce future impacts based on Figure 3-1 occur in heating, lighting and renovation/
maintenance. It is perhaps not surprising then that the IMPRO-Building found that the
measures yielding the most significant improvements were additional roof insulation,
additional façade insulation and new seals to improve air-tightness of buildings (Nemry, et al.,
2008, p. xx). For new buildings, leaving aside improved insulation, the most significant
improvements come from the use of wood over concrete and bricks (Nemry, et al., 2008, p.
xix). However, it is important to note that the IMPRO-Building study did not include land or
water indicators and the land required for forests will be greater than for stone quarries,
cement plants and brick factories.
4.2.2 Improvement potentials suggested by the IEA
The IEA (2011) has provided 25 energy-efficiency policy recommendations, which it
estimates could collectively reduce global energy consumption by 17%. Seven of these
measures are directly applicable to the built environment. They suggest governments should:
 Apply minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) to all new buildings and all
buildings undergoing renovation;
 Encourage the construction of net-zero energy buildings;
 Improve the energy-efficiency of the current building stock;
 Require that building energy performance labels or certificates be available to
owners, buyers and renters;
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
20 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044



4.2.3
Establish policies to improve the energy-efficiency of core building components, such
as heating systems, cooling systems and insulation;
Phase-out inefficient lighting products; and
Promote the use of natural light and set MEPS for lighting.
Improvement potentials from cost abatement curves for global warming
McKinsey & Company has produced a series of well-known global greenhouse gas marginal
abatement cost curves (MACs). These curves compare the abatement potentials and likely
implementation costs of many different improvement measures in order to help prioritise the
most cost-effective measures. While greenhouse gases are not an indicator in this report,
they provide a good proxy for energy under the current global energy production mix. It is
important to recognise that marginal cost curves are a reasonably crude comparison tool and
can fail to account for interactions among improvement measures, among other issues
(Kesicki & Ekins, 2012; Vogt-Schilb & Hallegatte, 2011).
Figure 4-1: Global greenhouse gas marginal abatement cost curve for the buildings sector (McKinsey, 2009,
p. 107)
Limitations aside, and ignoring implementation measures that are not within the scope of this
study (e.g. to residential appliances), Figure 4-1 suggests the following main measures:
 Improved building insulation (new-build and renovation);
 Improved air-tightness (new-build and renovation);
 Triple-paned glazing (part of “retrofit building envelope, package 2 - residential”);
 High-efficiency water heating;
 Maximising use of passive solar energy (part of the “new build” packages);
 Replace existing HVAC systems with high-efficiency alternatives;
 Replace water heating systems with high-efficiency alternatives; and
 Replace incandescent and compact fluorescent lamps with LED lamps.
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
21 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
4.3
Improvement options recommended by PE’s built environment experts
An initial “long list” of 110 possible improvement options (Annex 1), including options which
target the use stage of the built environment, was compiled during a brainstorming session on
2 May 2012 by three senior experts from PE International specialising in the environmental
performance of the built environment. Each option was then ranked independently on a threepoint scale by four experts from PE to determine its potential to improve the resource
efficiency of the built environment while not significantly increasing emissions-related
environmental impacts. The rankings were weighted (high=2, medium=1 and low=0) and
summed together to a total score. Options with a score of 5 or more (of a possible 8) were
shortlisted and then combined together (where sufficiently similar) to create the summary in
Table 4-1. The improvement options have been categorised in four ways. First, by the stage
of the building/infrastructure life cycle they target, i.e. the building products or the design,
construction, use or end-of-life of the building/infrastructure itself. Second, whether they target
residential buildings, commercial buildings or roads. Third, by the decoupling strategy
employed (section 4.1). Fourth, by the impact category where the improvement option is likely
to have the most effect (section 2.2).
Table 4-1: Initial selection of improvement options in the built environment for further discussion (impacts
highlighted in bold are those considered to have greatest improvement potential)
X
E
X
X X
Reduce production waste; increase scrap recycling
X
X
X
E
X
X X
Select materials with low PED, ADP, water footprint
X
X
X
E
X
X
X
X
Adopt best available technology (BAT) in production
X
X
X
E
X
X
X
X
Shift from products to services, e.g. carpet leasing
X
X
X I,N X
X
X
Rethink products (radical product redesign)
X
X
X N X
Design for repair, disassembly, recycling
X
X
X
Use brownfield rather than greenfield
X
X
Protect ecological habitats
X
X
Measures to tackle increasing space/person trend
X
Consider low footprint / high density developments
X
Flexible design to ensure high use over time
X
Function integration, e.g. multi-purpose buildings
I
X
Emissions
Materials
Products
Land + biodiversity
Strategy*
X
Energy
Roads
X
Water
Commercial
Use high ratio of secondary / recycled materials
Improvement option
Design
Impacts
Residential
Sector
X X X
X
X
X
I
X
X I,N
I
X
X
I
X
X
X X X
X
I
X
X
X X X
X
I
X
X
X X X
X X X
Optimise shape and orientation of building for site
X
X
N X
X X X
Optimise daylighting
X
X
N
X
Balance life-cycle costs and life-cycle energy
X
X
On-site electricity generation (for net-zero energy)
X
X
X
P
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
22 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
P
X
Select products with low PED, ADP, water footprint
X
X
X
P
X
Use cogeneration
X
X
Use air-source and ground-source heat pumps
X
Install heat recovery systems
Construction
Use
X
Emissions
X
X
Land + biodiversity
X
Energy
X
P
Water
Responsible sourcing, legal timber, FSC / PEFC timber
Materials
X
Strategy*
X
Roads
Commercial
Use eco-labelled boilers, lighting, etc.
Improvement option
EoL
Impacts
Residential
Sector
X
X
X
X
P
X
X
X
P
X
X
X
X
P
X
X
Install heat storage
X
X
P
X
X
Increase insulation
X
X
I
X
X
Eliminate ventilation losses (increase airtightness)
X
X
I
X
X
Eliminate thermal bridges
X
X
I
X
X
Reduce construction waste + increase waste recycling
X
X
X
I
X
X X
Reuse soil from excavations
X
X
X
I
X
X
Increase acceptable range for thermal comfort
X
X
D
X
Avoid overheating
X
X
D
X
Improve maintenance
X
X
Monitor water use + make visible to building users
X
X
D
Monitor energy + make use visible to building users
X
X
D
On-site crushing and reuse of demolition waste
X
X
X
I
X
X
Recycling of demolition waste that cannot be reused
X
X
X
I
X
X
Start urban mining / use of materials from old landfills
X
X
X
I
X
X
Install take-back systems
X
X
I
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*E = produce existing products/services more efficiently; I = intensify use of existing products; N = meet
the same need in a less impactful way; P = purchase lower impact products; D = reduce demand
Two of the improvement options in Table 4-1 (“On-site crushing and reuse of demolition
waste” and “Recycling of demolition waste that cannot be reused”) are not in the full list in
Annex 1. The reason for this is that they are linked to the options “Use high ratio of secondary
/ recycled materials”, “Design buildings for repair, disassembly and recycling” and “Reduce
construction waste + increase waste recycling”. They have been separated out to highlight
that the full building/infrastructure life cycle has been accounted for.
4.4
Improvement options recommended by PE’s built environment experts which do
not explicitly target energy use in the use stage of buildings
As the scope of this study has been defined to exclude energy use in the use phase of
buildings given that this area is already well regulated, a more detailed elaboration of the top
options excluding those focused on use stage energy impacts is presented in Table 4-2.
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
23 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
These options were ranked in order of their estimated potential by PE International’s built
environment specialists. The “High” column indicates the number of experts who gave the
option a “High” ranking (with a score of 2), the “Medium” column indicates the number of
experts who gave the option a “Medium” ranking (with a score of 1) and the “Total” column is
a weighted sum of all rankings. “Low” rankings were assigned a score of 0 and therefore
excluded. The final two columns estimate the availability of implementation cost data and how
feasible it will be to quantify changes to resource use and emissions. Because these options
largely exclude the use stage, which was previously shown to be the single-most significant
life cycle stage, improvements made in these areas are welcome provided that they do not
detrimentally affect performance of the building or infrastructure project in the use stage.
Table 4-2: Initial selection of improvement options excluding measures which target use-stage energy
Total
High
Medium
Impl.cost?*
Quantifiable?*
Rank*
Improvement option
Life cycle
stage
Use high ratio of secondary / recycled materials
Products
8 4 0 M H
Select materials with low embodied energy (PED basis),
materials (ADP basis) and blue water consumption, e.g.
substitute bricks and concrete for wood in construction
Products
8 4 0 M H
Develop on brownfield sites rather than greenfield
Design
8 4 0 M L
Incentives to tackle trend toward increasing space/person
Design
7 3 1 ? L
Rethink products (radical product redesign)
Products
7 3 1 H L
Design for repair, disassembly, recycling
Design
7 3 1 M M
Reduce construction waste + increase recycling
Construct 7 3 1 M H
Consider low footprint / high density developments
Design
Responsible sourcing, e.g. FSC / PEFC timber
Construct 7 3 1 M L
Adopt BAT in production
Products
7 3 1 M M
Function integration, e.g. multi-purpose buildings
Design
6 3 0 H L
Provide high adaptability/flexibility/functionality of design to
ensure intensive use over time
Design
6 2 2 M M
Improve maintenance, e.g. re-melt road asphalt
Use
6 2 2 M M
Monitor water use + make visible to building users
Use
6 2 2 M L
Start urban mining / use materials from old landfills
EoL
5 1 3 H L
Install take-back systems
EoL
5 1 3 H M
Shift from products to services, e.g. carpet leasing
Products
5 1 3 M M
Protect ecological habitats
Design
5 1 3 ? L
Reuse soil from excavations
Construct 5 1 3 L M
* Estimate only. Key: “H” = high, “M” = medium, “L” = low and “?” = unknown.
7 3 1 M M
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
24 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
Options from Table 4-2 that were sufficiently similar were combined into packages. The full
list of improvement options, including packages of options, recommended to stakeholders
prior to the workshop in September 2012 was:
1. Select materials with low embodied energy, water and ADP, including:
a. Select materials with low embodied energy (PED basis), materials (ADP
basis) and blue water consumption, e.g. substitute bricks and concrete for
wood in construction
b. Responsible sourcing, e.g. FSC / PEFC timber
2. Use materials more efficiently
3. Reduce construction waste
4. Increase use of secondary / recycled materials, including:
a. Use high ratio of secondary / recycled materials
b. Start urban mining / use materials from old landfills
5. Increase recycling of material at end-of-life, including:
a. Reduce construction waste + increase recycling (see also #3)
b. Design for repair, disassembly, recycling
c. Install take-back systems
d. Reuse soil from excavations
6. Intensify use of buildings, including:
a. Function integration, e.g. multi-purpose buildings
b. Provide high adaptability/flexibility/functionality of design to ensure intensive
use over time
c. Incentives to tackle trend toward increasing space/person (see also #7)
7. Reduce land used by the built environment (intensification), including:
a. Consider low footprint / high density developments
b. Incentives to tackle trend toward increasing space/person (see also #6)
c. Develop on brownfield sites rather than greenfield
8. Improve maintenance and replacement, including:
a. Improve maintenance, e.g. re-melt road asphalt
b. Shift from products to services, e.g. carpet leasing (only partially included)
Not all options from Table 4-2 were included in this list. The improvement options “Rethink
products (radical product redesign)” and “Protect ecological habitats” were ranked as highly
important; however, they are extremely difficult to quantify. The option “Adopt BAT in
production” was not included as it is already regulated through BAT reference documents
(BREF) and this study aims to identify new measures. Similarly, “Monitor water use + make
visible to building users” is already being tackled by water utilities throughout Europe. For
BAT and water, it would be possible to model improvements; however, modeling would
largely focus on speeding up roll-out of existing ideas and policies rather than on new
measures. The option “Use materials more efficiently”, which was included in the “long list” in
Annex 1 but did not make it into Table 4-2, has been reintroduced as it is an area where
improvements in current practice can be made.
4.5
Improvement options recommended by stakeholders
Table 4-3 presents the improvement options put forward and ranked by stakeholders at a
workshop held at DG Environment’s offices in Brussels on 12 September 2012. Stakeholders
were asked, “What improvement options would you suggest to provide the greatest
improvement in resource efficiency across the built environment by 2030?” This workshop
was facilitated by Professor Arnold Tukker using the OPERA (Own thinking, Pair up, Explain,
Rank, Arrange) process in order to produce, group and then rank ideas.
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
25 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
Table 4-3: Improvement options put forward and ranked by stakeholders
No. Improvement option
Votes
1
Design for deconstruction
22
2
Enhance durability of buildings, roads, etc.
17
3
Improvement of recycling standards and regulations
15
4
Use Building Information Modelling (BIM) and measure impact at the building
level, provide information on materials
14
5
Increase intensity of use of buildings
11
6
Design and incentivise for performance at the building level
10
7
Increase renovation rate
10
8
Urban and spatial planning
8
9
Internalise external costs
7
10
Exchange of best practice
7
11
Resource roadmaps by the EU
6
12
Systems not products
4
13
New business models
3
14
Radical innovations (carbon as a resource)
3
Radical innovations (radically different designs for roads)
2
15
Focus on high impact industries (glass, steel, cement)
2
16
Low maintenance scenarios
2
17
Green skills exchange
1
4.6
Comparison of stakeholder and expert improvement options
Table 4-4 shows a reasonable correlation between the options put forward by stakeholders
and those recommended by PE International. Given the differences in names and also the
new ideas presented, it seems unlikely that this correlation is solely due to participants being
provided an initial list of suggestions in advance of the workshop. One of the most striking
discrepancies is that stakeholders’ top-ranked option, “design for deconstruction” did not
feature in PE’s short list when interpreted broadly as design of buildings and infrastructure so
that modules or entire structures can be reused at end-of-life. Only the narrower interpretation
as design for disassembly and recycling was considered. The stakeholder option to increase
the renovation rate over that covered by regulation had also not been considered by PE.
Table 4-4: Comparison of stakeholder and expert improvement options
Stakeholder improvement option
Expert improvement option
1. Design for deconstruction
5b. Design for repair, disassembly, recycling
2. Enhance durability of buildings, roads
8. Improve maintenance and replacement
3. Improvement of recycling standards
and regulations
3. Reduce production of construction waste
4. Increase use of secondary/recycled materials
5. Increase recycling of waste at end of life
4. Use Building Information Modelling
1. Select materials with low embodied energy,
(BIM) and measure impact at the building water and ADP (modelled as improvement in
level, provide information on materials
building performance through use of EPDs)
2. Use materials more efficiently
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
26 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
Stakeholder improvement option
Expert improvement option
5. Increase intensity of use of buildings
6. Intensify use of buildings
6. Design and incentivise for performance
at the building level
7. Increase renovation rate
8. Urban and spatial planning
7. Reduce land used by built environment
9. Internalise external costs
10. Exchange of best practice
11. Resource roadmaps by the EU
12. Systems not products
13. New business models
14. Radical innovations
1. Select materials with low embodied energy,
water and ADP (modelled as a move from
heavyweight to lightweight construction)
15. Focus on high impact industries
16. Low maintenance scenarios
17. Green skills exchange
4.7
Improvement options to be taken into detailed analysis
Having considered the feedback provided by stakeholders on this paper during the meeting
on 12 September 2012, and having reviewed the overlap of the stakeholders’ improvement
options, PE now suggest that the following improvement options (or packages of options) are
modelled (listed in alphabetical order).
1. Design for Deconstruction (new package)
2. Improve maintenance and replacement (e.g. paints, carpets, roads) (previously #8)
3. Increase recycling of waste at end of life (e.g. asphalt, soil and concrete, PVC,
carpet) (previously #5)
4. Increase renovation rate (new)
5. Increase use of secondary/recycled materials (e.g. recycled C&D waste in road base,
PFA in cement and concrete, mine landfills) (previously #4)
6. Intensify use of buildings (e.g. space per dwelling, reduce demand for non-domestic
building) (previously #6)
7. Reduce land used by built environment (e.g. move to higher density housing)
(previously #7)
8. Reduce production of construction waste (previously #3)
9. Select materials with low embodied energy, water and ADP , modelled as
improvement in building performance through use of EPDs, Incentivising
performance at the building level, and a move from heavyweight to lightweight
construction (previously #1)
10. Use materials more efficiently (e.g. move to thinner or hollow products) (prev. #2)
These 10 selected improvement options (or packages of options) are described in greater
detail in Annex 2.
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
27 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
5 Description of approach for further work
This paper sets out the 10 improvement options (or packages of options) that will be carried
forward into more detailed analysis. Once this analysis is complete, a brief factsheet will be
generated for each option. Each factsheet will provide the information outlined below. The
“General” sections of the factsheets (excluding the policy-related elements) are presented in
Annex 2. The full analysis for each factsheet will be presented in Topical Paper 4, “Validation
of technical improvement options for resource efficiency of buildings and infrastructure”.
General
 Description of Improvement Option
 Examples of relevant technical measures
 Target built environment sector, geographical region, life-cycle stage
 Relevant actors (e.g. designers, manufacturers, contractors, regulators, etc.)
 Barriers to adoption
 Description of existing baseline (existing implementation across EU-27)
 Policy at EU and Member State level covering the Improvement Option
Implementation data
 Information on the investment costs differentiated between labour costs, costs of
various materials and possible other costs
 Time for implementation (duration of implementation phase)
 The use of materials (in physical units) used for construction per unit of improvement
and any waste generated
Use stage data
 Efficiency gains in terms of less energy/water/land/material use in % relative to the
initial situation. This may be differentiated by geographical region.
 Lifetime, i.e. how many years on average it can be in use before replacement/
demolition is required (duration of the use phase)
End-of-life stage data
 In case a certain amount of waste is generated after the improvement is demolished/
replaced, information on the waste per unit of improvement would be included.
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
28 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
6 References

Adams, K. (2010). CD&E Waste: Halving Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste to Landfill by 2012
compared to 2008. Strategic Forum for Construction.

Aquaterra. (2008). International comparisons of domestic per capita consumption. Bristol: Environment Agency.

Asphalt Institute & Eurobitume. (2011). The Bitumen Industry - A Global Perspective. 2nd Ed. Asphalt Institute &
Eurobitume.

BERR. (2008). Energy consumption in the United Kingdom: 2008 update. London, UK: Department for Business
Enterprise & Regulatory Reform.

BGS. (2006, January). Limestone Mineral Planning Factsheet. Retrieved from British Geological Survey:
www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=1361

BGS. (2012). What are aggregates used for? Retrieved from British Geological Survey:
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/planning4minerals/Economics_15.htm

BPIE. (2011, October). Europe's buildings under the microscope. A country-by-country review of the energy
performance of buildings. Retrieved from Buildings Performance Institute Europe:
http://www.bpie.eu/eu_buildings_under_microscope.html

BRE. (2008). Wastage Rate Report. Construction, Resources and Waste Platform.

Brodkom, F. (2000, February 9). Good Environmental Practice in the European Extractive Industries: A
Reference Guide. Retrieved May 18, 2012, from European Commission:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=3212

CEN. (2012). EN 15804:2012, Sustainability of construction works — Environmental product declarations —
Core rules for the product category of construction products. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for
Standardisation.

Defra. (2008). BNWAT22: Domestic water consumption in domestic and non-domestic properties (V1.1).
Retrieved from Defra: efficient-products.defra.gov.uk/spm/download/document/id/669

Dol, K., & Haffner, M. (2010). Housing Statistics in the European Union 2010. The Hague, Netherlands: Ministry
of the Interior and Kingdom Relations.

Dworak, T., Berglund, M., Laaser, C., Strosser, P., Roussard, J., Grandmougin, B., et al. (2007, July 19). EU
water saving potential. ENV.D.2/ETU/2007/0001r. Retrieved from European Commission:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/water_saving_1.pdf

EAA. (2012). End-use markets for aluminium products 2010. Retrieved from European Aluminium Association:
http://www.alueurope.eu/consumption-end-use-markets-for-aluminium-products-2010/

EC. (2007, December 21). A lead market initiative for Europe. Retrieved from European Commission: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0860:FIN:en:PDF

EC. (2010, March 3). Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Retrieved from
European Commission: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF

EC. (2011, September 20). Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe. COM(2011) 571 final. Retrieved from
European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/pdf/com2011_571.pdf

EEA. (2010, November 30). Land use — SOER 2010 thematic assessment. Retrieved from European
Environmental Agency: http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/land-use

Eurofer. (2012, May 7). Economic and Steel Market Outlook 2012-2013. Retrieved from Eurofer:
http://www.eurofer.org/index.php/eng/content/download/387/2316/file/Market%20Report-2012-April.pdf

Eurostat. (2012, February 2). Glass, ceramic, clay and cement production statistics - NACE Rev. 1.1. Retrieved
from Eurostat:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glass,_ceramic,_clay_and_cement_production_
statistics_-_NACE_Rev._1.1

Eurostat. (2012). Use of water from public water supply by services and private households (ten00014).
Retrieved from Eurostat:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=ten00014

Glass for Europe. (2012). Overview of the building glass market. Retrieved from Glass for Europe:
http://www.glassforeurope.com/en/industry/market-for-glass.php

ICSG. (2010, October). The World Copper Factbook 2010. Retrieved from International Copper Study Group:
http://www.icsg.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=278&Itemid=61
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
29 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044

IEA. (2011). 25 Energy Efficiency Policy Recommendations. 2011 Update. Retrieved from International Energy
Agency: http://www.iea.org/papers/2011/25recom_2011.pdf

Kesicki, F., & Ekins, P. (2012). Marginal abatement cost curves: a call for caution. Climate Policy, 12, 219-236.

Krausmann, F., Gingrich, S., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K.-H., Haberl, H., & Fischer-Kowalski, M. (2009). Growth in
global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century. Ecological Economics, 68, 2696-2705.

Lapillonne, B., Sebi, C., & Pollier, K. (2012, March). Energy efficiency trends for household in the EU. Retrieved
from Odyssee Indicators: odyssee-indicators.org/reports/household/Household_EU.pdf

Lapillonne, B., Sebi, C., & Pollier, K. (2012, April). Energy efficiency trends in buildings in the EU. Retrieved from
Odyssee Indicators: odyssee-indicators.org/reports/buildings/buildings_eu.pdf

LBP. (2010). Documentation of Land Use Indicators Values in GaBi 4. Retrieved from PE International:
http://www.gabi-software.com/fileadmin/Documents/landuse.pdf

McCormack, M., Treloar, G., Palmowski, L., & Crawford, R. (2007). Modelling direct and indirect water
requirements of construction. Building Research & Information, 35(2), 156-162.

McKinsey. (2009, January). Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy. Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas
Abatement Cost Curve. Retrieved from McKinsey & Company:
https://solutions.mckinsey.com/ClimateDesk/default.aspx

Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2011, May). National water footprint accounts: the green, blue and grey
water footprint of production and consumption. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 50. Retrieved from
UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education: http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report50NationalWaterFootprints-Vol1.pdf

Moll, S., Bringezu, S., & Schütz, H. (2003, March). Zero Study: Resource Use in European Countries. Retrieved
from ETC-WMF: http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/themes/mfa/Zero%20Study

Nemry, F., Uihlein, A., Colodel, C. M., Wittstock, B., Braune, A., Wetzel, C., et al. (2008). Environmental
Improvement Potentials of Residential Buildings (IMPRO-Building). Retrieved from JRC IPTS:
http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC46667.pdf

ONS. (2007, January 29). Office for National Statistics, UK. Retrieved from Land Use Statistics (Generalised
Land Use Database), 2005:
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/viewFullDataset.do;?step=4&productId=1201&instanc
eSelection=019561&timeId=230&containerAreaId=276699&startColumn=1&numberOfColumns=13&maxi=1&vie
wAction=prev&nsjs=true&nsck=true&nssvg=false&nswid=136

Smith, R. A., Kersey, J. R., & Griffiths, P. J. (2003). The Construction Industry Mass Balance: resource use,
wastes and emissions (revised). Viridis.

Tukker, A., Huppes, G., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., de Koning, A., van Oers, L., et al. (2006, May). Environmental
Impact of Products (EIPRO). Retrieved from European Commission:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/pdf/eipro_report.pdf

UEPG. (2011, August 30). Annual Review 2010-2011. Retrieved May 18, 2012, from European Aggregates
Association: http://www.uepg.eu/publications/annual-reviews

UNECE. (2010). Summary table of market forecasts for 2010 and 2011. Retrieved from United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe:
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/press/pr2010/10tim_p13/Summary%20Tables.pdf

UNEP. (2011). Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth. A report
of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel. Retrieved from United Nations
Environment Programme: http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/decoupling/files/pdf/decoupling_report_english.pdf

USGS. (2011, July). 2009 Minerals Yearbook: Cement [Advance Release]. Retrieved from US Geological
Survey: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/

Vinyl 2010. (2011). Progress Report 2011. Retrieved from PlasticsEurope:
http://www.plasticseurope.org/documents/document/20110422155920-vinyl2010__progress_report_2011.pdf

Vogt-Schilb, A., & Hallegatte, S. (2011, September 1). When Starting with the Most Expensive Option Makes
Sense. Use and Misuse of Marginal Abatement Cost Curves. Retrieved from The World Bank: http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2011/09/21/000158349_20110921094422/Ren
dered/PDF/WPS5803.pdf

Wang, W. (2006, November 22). Sustainable Building Development in China. Retrieved from
http://www.ectp.org/documentation/D2-42-Wang.pdf

Waylen, C. (2011). Water: The 2009 progress report on reducing water usage on construction sites. Strategic
Forum for Construction.

WRAP. (2008). Choosing construction products; Guide to the recycled content of mainstream construction
products. Banbury, UK: The Waste & Resources Action Programme.
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
30 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
Impl. cost*
Medium
High
Rank*
Total
Roads
Commercial
# Measure
1 Improve material intensity = reduce production waste and
increase recycling of waste
2 Choose lowest ADP alternative (use * scarcity), also from
regional perspective
3 Use products / materials with low “abiotic depletion potential”
4 Use brownfield rather than greenfield
5 Use products / materials with low life cycle “water footprint”
6 Optimise design for energy use
7 Use eco-labelled white goods/boilers/lighting etc.
8 Incentives to tackle trend towards increased space/person
9 Rethinking of products / radical product redesign
10 Design for repair, disassembly and recycling
11 Reduce construction waste and increase recycling of waste
12 Use materials with low embodied material consumption
13 Consider compact building / infrastructure footprint (high
density)
14 Responsible sourcing, legal timber, FSC / PEFC timber
15 Adopt Best Available Technology (BAT)
16 Eliminate ventilation losses (increase airtightness)
17 Use materials with low embodied energy demand
18 Increase acceptable ranges for thermal comfort (heating and
cooling)
19 Consider function integration
20 Design processes to use high ratio of secondary / recycled
materials
21 Provide high adaptability/flexibility/functionality of design to
ensure intensive use of building over time
22 Improve maintenance (e.g. remelt asphalt from roads)
23 Monitor water use
24 Use products / materials with low primary energy demand
25 Avoid overheating
26 Optimise shape and orientation of building
27 Optimise daylighting
28 Increase insulation
29 Use cogeneneration
30 Use wind energy sources
31 Start urban mining / use materials from old landfill sites
32 Install take-back systems
33 Shift from products to services e.g. carpet leasing, facade
leasing, office heated to 20°C
34 Protect ecological habitats
35 Reuse soil
36 Optimise building / infrastructure for land use with regards to
functions of the building / infrastructure
37 Choose lowest primary energy alternative
Residential
Sector
Quantifiable?*
7 Annex 1: All improvement options considered
X X X 8 4 0 M H
X X X 8 4 0 M H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X 8 4 0 M
X
8 4 0 M
X X 8 4 0 M
X X 8 4 0 ?
X
8 4 0 L
7 3 1 ?
X X 7 3 1 H
X X 7 3 1 M
X X 7 3 1 M
X X 7 3 1 M
X X
X
X
X
X
H
L
H
M
L
L
L
M
H
H
7 3 1 M M
X X 7 3 1
X X 7 3 1
X
7 3 1
X X 7 3 1
M
M
M
?
L
M
H
M
X X
7 3 1 L H
X
6 3 0 H L
X X X 6 2 2 H M
X X
6 2 2 M M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X 6 2 2 M M
X
6 2 2 M L
X X 6 2 2 M M
X
6 2 2 L H
X
6 2 2 M L
X
6 2 2 M L
X
6 2 2 M H
X
6 2 2 H M
X
6 2 2 M H
X X X 5 1 3 H L
X X
5 1 3 H M
X
5 1 3 M M
X X X 5 1 3 ? L
X X X 5 1 3 L M
X X X 5 1 3 ? L
X X X 5 1 3 M M
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
31 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
Commercial
Roads
Total
High
Medium
Impl. cost*
Quantifiable?*
# Measure
38 Eliminate thermal bridges
39 Install heat recovery systems
40 Use photovoltaic energy sources
41 Use air-source and ground-source heat pumps
42 Install heat storage
43 Balance life-cycle costs and life-cycle energy use (e.g. spend
more upfront to save over total life cycle)
44 Consider the appropriate use of reused / recycled materials /
products
45 Increase service life/durability for products likely to be
replaced
46 Replace products through immaterial solutions (e.g. secure
by design)
47 Design for disassembly and recycling
48 Design processes to use grey or rain water (instead of fresh
water)
49 Choose lowest water footprint alternative (use * scarcity), also
from regional perspective
50 Install grey-water recycling
51 Install green roofs
52 Increase thermal mass
53 Use vegetation and outside environment for cooling effects
54 Increase recycling efficiencies (definition plus ranking)
55 Optimise design on expected service life (e.g. fashion related,
short life buildings)
56 Control erosion and sedimentation during mining and
production
57 Encourage use of public transport
58 Design products with reduced water consumption
59 Use biomass
60 Use geothermal energy sources
61 Increase shading where required
62 Communicating environmental performance
63 Green public procurement
64 Use native species for landscaping
65 Simplify maintenance of water using products to reduce leaks
66 Install rainwater storage
67 Consider the correct sizing of equipment
68 Optimise design (shape, massing) for material / product use
and installation
69 Consider use of high intensity products (hollowcore floors,
high intensity steel)
70 Choose lowest land intensive alternative design
71 Use products / materials with low “land intensity”
72 Use materials with low land intensity
73 Install low flush toilets
74 Install permeable paving/SUDS
75 Use materials with low embodied water use
76 Improve energy intensity
Rank*
Residential
Sector
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
M
M
M
H
M
H
M
H
H
H
X X X 5 1 3 L L
X X X 4 1 2 M M
X X
4 1 2 M H
X X
4 1 2 M L
X X
4 1 2 M M
X X
4 1 2 M H
X X X 4 1 2 M H
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
4
X
4
X X 4
X X 4
X X
1
1
1
1
0
2
2
2
2
4
H
M
?
M
M
L
L
L
L
H
4 0 4 L H
X X X 4 0 4 ? L
X X
4
X X X 4
X X
4
4
X X X 4
X X
4
X X 4
X X X 3
X X
3
X X
3
X X
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
L
M
H
H
L
M
?
L
M
M
L
H
H
M
H
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
X X
3 0 3 ? L
X X
3 0 3 H M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X 3 0 3
X 3 0 3
X 3 0 3
3 0 3
X 3 0 3
X 3 0 3
3 0 3
M
M
M
L
L
M
?
L
L
L
L
M
M
M
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
32 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
X
X
X
X
X
Medium
Impl. cost*
Quantifiable?*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
H
M
M
L
L
L
M
M
L
M
L
L
L
M
2 0 2 L L
X X
X X
X X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X X
X X X
unknown.
L
H
M
L
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
L
L
M
L
L
M
M
L
2 0 2 H L
X
1
X X 1
X X 1
X 1
X
1
X X
L
M
M
M
2 0 2 M L
X
2
X
2
X X 2
X
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
X X 2 0 2
X
2 0 2
X
2 0 2
X
2 0 2
X X
X
X
X
X
High
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
Rank*
Total
Roads
Commercial
# Measure
77 Increase energy recovery
78 Install controls/zones for heating/cooling/lighting
79 Install appropriate glazing
80 Provide facility management (FM) training
81 Provide space for recycling storage in operation in building
82 Minimize over-specification
83 Improve bio-based material intensity
84 Intensify use of basements for e.g. parking, technical
appliances / electricity
85 Provide water runoff mitigation plan
86 Improve water consumption
87 Increase water recycling efficiencies (definition plus ranking)
88 Install and use water leak detection
89 Design heating/hot water circuits to reduce water/thermal
losses
90 Install low flow/sensor/timed taps
91 Install low flow showers
92 Design processes to use alternative energy sources
93 Provide user's manual
94 Expand buildings’ / infrastructures’ functions / higher flexibility
(e.g. adapt building for higher home working rates)
95 Label products to identify technical properties (e.g. RFID)
96 Control erosion and sedimentation during construction
97 Minimise soil compaction during construction
98 Reduce light pollution
99 Optimise design (functions,...) for water use
100 Use products with minimal water requirements for cleaning
and consider water-efficient cleaning mechanisms
101 Increase indoor air quality to reduce need for ventilation
102 Regularly maintain EuP
103 Minimise soil compaction during mining and production
104 Install smaller baths
105 Install maintenance-free fittings
106 Install separate rainwater and wastewater drainage
107 Treat limescale
108 Limit water pressure
109 Reduce glare
110 Deconstruction
* Estimate only. Key: “H” = high, “M” = medium, “L” = low and “?” =
Residential
Sector
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
M
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
1 0 1 L L
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
?
?
L
L
H
?
?
L
?
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
?
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
33 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
8 Annex 2: Example factsheets
Taking into consideration input from stakeholders, the 10 improvement options/packages
below have been selected by PE International’s built environment experts as having, in their
opinion, the greatest potential to improve the resource efficiency of the built environment
while not significantly increasing emissions-related environmental impacts. Each option below
contains a summary of the “General” sections of the factsheet (see section 5) excluding the
policy-related elements.
8.1
Design for Deconstruction
Overview: Maximum resource efficiency can be obtained from materials at the end of life if
they can be recovered in the most efficient way. Design for deconstruction ensures that
materials can be easily separated at the end of life, so ensuring that there are no barriers to
recycling the material into the highest value solutions, rather than downcycling or landfill for
example.
Example measures:
 Use magnetic bonding for tiled floor coverings (resilient and textile) rather than
adhesives so that the tiles can be reused or recycled rather than downcycled or
landfilled.
 Use screws rather than adhesives for skirting boards etc. so that repairs can be
undertaken with minimum creation of waste.
 Use lime mortars rather than cement mortars for new brick and blockwork, to enable
reuse of bricks and blocks, rather than downcycling as aggregate.
Sector:
Region:
Actors:
Residential; Commercial
All Europe
Product manufacturers; Architects (specification); Clients (purchasing)
Stakeholder improvement option #1: Design for deconstruction
During the workshop, this new option was described by stakeholders as the use of modular
construction which allowed reuse of modules or whole elements of construction to minimise
the need for demolition and new construction. A less extreme version was described as
design allowing materials to be separated easily at end of life to maximise recycling potential.
Currently, reuse of modules and elements of construction is not a common construction
approach. Where it has been used, it has not always resulted in reuse as planned. For
example, the Nakagin Capsule Tower in Tokyo was built in 1972 with “capsules” which could
be easily replaced (only 4 bolts connect each capsule to the superstructure); however, this
has never happened, and the tower is now empty and threatened with demolition. Where
buildings with an expected short life are built using this approach, reuse may also not occur,
for example, the British Pavilion at EXPO’92 in Seville was designed to be deconstructed and
rebuilt, but, although it was deconstructed, it has not been rebuilt. Alternatively, although
intended to have a short life, many reuseable buildings are found to have much extended
lives; for example, Brighton and Hove Council in the UK are still using 46 temporary reusable
classrooms, 5 of which were built before 1974. With the rapid advances in building regulation,
particularly in terms of energy efficiency, the reuse of these types of temporary building can
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
34 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
be problematic as considerable upgrading of the fabric and air-tightness may be required to
meet current regulations and the reuse of units with poor performance will have larger in-use
resource use.
This project is intended to focus on improvement options bringing benefits by 2030. There are
very few buildings which are planned with an expected life of less than 20 years. For buildings
with expected lives of longer than 20 years, the potential increased resource use to allow for
design for deconstruction will not have any benefits until the module is reused, and at this
point, with longer reuse cycles, there may be technological or regulatory changes which mean
that the module cannot be reused without substantial refurbishment.
For these reasons, PE believes that designing for complete reuse of modules or building
elements is not likely to be an improvement option with significant potential. However, PE
agrees that including an option considering design for deconstruction to enable segregation of
wastes and increase recycling should be considered. Focussing on improvement options for
short-life components, such as flooring, should maximise the improvement in the short-term.
8.2
Improve maintenance and replacement and enhance durability
Overview: Materials which need regular replacement (e.g. road surfaces, paint and carpets)
can reduce their impact by increasing their service life and improving replacement processes,
to increase recycling, reduce waste and reduce impact. It is important to note that “fashion”
must also be accounted for as items are not only replaced because they wear out.
Example measures:
 Increase service life of paint from 5 to 6 years
 Increase service life of carpets from 7 to 9 years
 Increase service life of road surface from X to X+2 years
Sector:
Region:
Actors:
Residential; Commercial; Roads
All Europe
Product manufacturers; Architects (specification); Clients (purchasing)
Stakeholder improvement option #2: Enhance durability
This option was ranked second-highest by stakeholders. This option recommends modelling
increased durability for short-life components (paint, carpets, road surfaces). PE has
focussed on short-life components with significant impacts as this will maximise the benefits
achieved by 2030.
8.3
Increase recycling of waste at end-of-life
Overview: Recycling material at end-of-life avoids incineration without energy recovery and
landfill and makes available secondary material which can offset primary material. These
measures are predominantly focussed on changes to existing demolition and recycling
practice to increase recycling, rather than on changes to new product design, specification
and the construction process (section 8.1) which will have benefits longer into the future.
Example measures:
 In-situ asphalt recycling
 Increase on-site/off-site recycling of soil and construction aggregates
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
35 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044




PVC takeback and recycling, e.g. Recovinyl
Carpet takeback and recycling
Window glass takeback and recycling
Gypsum takeback and recycling
Sector:
Region:
Actors:
Residential; Commercial; Roads
All Europe
Building product manufacturers; Architects; Contractors; Clients
Stakeholder improvement option #3: Improvement of recycling standards, regulations
This option was ranked third-highest by stakeholders. PE had previously recommended three
improvement options within this area (‘increase recycling’, ‘install take-back systems’ and
‘reuse soil from excavations’). While the option recommended by stakeholders focused on
standards and regulations, as the ‘bottom-up’ component of this project, Topical Paper 2
focuses on the final result of potential policies, i.e. changes in takeback and recycling, not the
policies themselves. Specific policies will be addressed in the next step of this project.
8.4
Increasing the renovation rate
Overview: There is already an assumed renovation of the existing stock, which, as shown by
IMPRO building, will result in reductions in operational energy consumption and a net
reduction in resource consumption. In general, energy efficiency measures have not been
included as they are not the focus of this study and are covered by existing policies. However,
increasing the renovation rate above that predicted by current policy is seen to be a valid
improvement option.
Example measures:
 Increased rate of renovation, taking into account both use of materials for renovation,
and the benefits of reduced regulated energy consumption.
Sector:
Region:
Actors:
Residential; Commercial
All Europe
City planners; Clients
Stakeholder improvement option #7: Increase renovation rate
Stakeholders suggested an increased renovation rate (above regulatory requirements) could
be modelled as an improvement option. PE agrees with this suggestion – this will have
significant advantages in reducing operational energy use.
8.5
Increase use of secondary / recycled materials
Overview: Increasing the recycled content of construction materials and products typically
lowers environmental impacts as recycling processes are generally less energy and resource
intensive than primary production routes. However, increasing recycled content will only lead
to macro environmental benefits if there is a source of scrap not already utilised as a highvalue product available for use in European Construction. For this reason, an option has been
included to mine existing landfills, providing a new source of metals and inert fill material that
is currently not used.
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
36 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
Example measures:
 Increase recycled content of road base and fill applications. Data from the UEPG
suggests 92% of European aggregate is virgin material. In the UK, 25% of aggregate
demand is met by recycled or secondary aggregates. Recycled aggregates can be
sourced by diverting construction and demolition waste from landfill, which has further
benefits, e.g. less land required for landfills.
 Increase use of pulverised fuel ash (PFA) in cement from 12% to 20%
 Mine old landfills to increase the amount of secondary material available and
substitute it for primary material
Sector:
Region:
Actors:
Residential; Commercial; Roads
All Europe
Cement and concrete manufacturers; Architects / infrastructure designers
(specification); Contractors (roads); Demolition contractors (to increase availability
of recycled material); Landfill operators; Local authorities
Stakeholder improvement option #3: Improvement of recycling standards, regulations
This option was ranked third-highest by stakeholders. While the option recommended by
stakeholders focused on standards and regulations, Topical Paper 2 focuses on the final
result of potential policies, i.e. increased availability of materials for recycling, not the policies
themselves. Specific policies will be addressed in the next step of this project.
8.6
Intensify use of buildings
Overview: The same building can provide the same function for more people, or provide
more functions, or provide the same function in less space, or be adaptable to other functions
at end of life. This reduces resource use. It can also help to reduce impacts in the use stage
as there is less space to heat and cool.
Example measures:
 5% reduction in space per dwelling for housing. Note: this will only affect new-build
housing.
 5% reduction in non-domestic buildings to echo reduction in need for new buildings if
multi-function spaces are provided. Note: this will only affect new-build construction.
Sector:
Region:
Actors:
Residential; Commercial
All Europe
Architects; Clients
Stakeholder improvement option #5: Increase intensity of use of buildings
There was a close match here between the stakeholders and PE’s option to model increased
use of buildings.
8.7
Reduce land used by the built environment (intensification)
Overview: Increasing density, i.e. moving from suburban to urban densities, will have
benefits in not just in land use but also materials and energy. For example, urban dwellers
typically have smaller homes and make greater use of public transport. However, not all of
these can be easily modelled up in a “bottom up” assessment.
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
37 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
Example measures:
 Compare high-density vs. low-density housing. Note: this will only affect new-build
housing.
Sector:
Region:
Actors:
Residential; Commercial; Roads
All Europe
City planners; Architects; Clients
Stakeholder improvement option #8: Urban and spatial planning
As with “Increasing intensity of use”, there was a close match here between the stakeholders
and PE’s option to model a move to higher density new housing.
8.8
Reduce production of construction waste
Overview: In the UK, where there has been good data collection, at least 10% of construction
materials are wasted (BRE, 2008). Reducing the amount of waste produced and increasing
the amount of this waste that is recycled would reduce the need for unnecessary
manufacturing and waste disposal.
Example measures:
 Reduce wastage rates by say 20% (i.e. if 10% of products are currently wasted,
model a reduction to 8% wastage). This will need to take into account existing
wastage rates and the improvement which is possible in each member state.
Sector:
Region:
Actors:
Residential; Commercial
All Europe
Architects; Contractors
Stakeholder improvement option #3: Improvement of recycling standards, regulations
This option was ranked third-highest by stakeholders. The comments in section 8.5 apply.
8.9
Select materials with low embodied energy, water and abiotic depletion potential
Overview: Materials have different properties, different impacts and can fulfil different
functions. Consider specifications which meet the function but which have lower
environmental impacts. The focus is both on selecting the products with better than average
performance in a product category, and in selecting materials to ensure that the building has
lower impact. This would be facilitated through the use of Building Information Modelling
(BIM) which allows coordinated assessment at the building level of resources in construction
and operation, and the provision of environmental information for products, through EPDs
(using the TC350 standard EN 15804). Stakeholders were keen to ensure that the focus
remains on incentivising for this low impact resource performance at the building level, rather
than the product level, for example, building on the Energy Performance in Buildings Directive
which concentrates on building performance.
The focus on reducing embodied impact will also stimulate the need for resource roadmaps
for relevant product sectors. The exchange of best practice in this area by building designers
Strategies for decoupling - options to consider in the field of buildings and infrastructure
38 / 38
ENV/F.1/ETU/2011/0044
and manufacturers and increasing the green skills base within the construction industry will
increase the uptake of resource efficiency in the sector.
Example measures:
 Heavyweight masonry vs. lightweight timber construction. This was identified as the
single-most important production stage measure for new-build construction by the
IMPRO-Building study (Nemry, et al., 2008, p. xix). However, there is a need to take
account of the amount of FSC/PEFC timber available and potential land use impacts.
 Improvements in performance due to selection of better building products through the
use of environmental production declarations (EPD). This could include a package of
options for concrete blocks, clay bricks and clay tiles, for example.
 Improvements in performance due to exchange of best practice and resource
efficiency roadmaps.
Sector:
Region:
Actors:
Residential; Commercial
Cool climates for lightweight timber construction; All Europe for use of EPDs
Building product manufacturers; Architects
Stakeholder improvement options #4, #6, #9, #10 and #11
Stakeholders highlighted that the use of BIM, tools to evaluate embodied impacts of
construction, availability of EPDs and the recent TC350 standards mean that the embodied
impact of buildings (and products in the building context) are likely to reduce. This is closely
related to the stakeholder option “6. Design and incentivise for performance at the building
level”. PE included two options which fit well within this heading. The first was a general
improvement in performance through the use of EPDs. This would cover use of tools taking
product data to evaluate building impact and hence reduce building impact. Additionally PE’s
option to model a move from heavyweight to lightweight construction would also be a
consequence of tools providing data on the benefits at the building level of this type of
approach. The second option mapped directly to this stakeholder option was the improvement
of individual product performance (in the building context) driven by availability of information
such as EPDs. Both of these options will also provide information that enable stakeholder
improvement option “9 Internalise external costs”.
8.10 Use materials more efficiently
Overview: Produce the same type of product with less material, e.g. by making the product
thinner, hollow, using voids, etc.
Example measures:
 Hollow bricks and blocks vs. solid bricks and blocks
 Hollow pre-cast concrete and decks with void formers vs. solid concrete
 Timber I-joists vs. solid timber joists
Sector:
Region:
Actors:
Residential; Commercial
All Europe
Building product manufacturers; Architects