Evaluating the durability of buildings is a skill. Both legislators and marketers of voluntary classification systems are interested in it. The degree of difficulty is increased by the long life cycle of the building, the effect of the building products that are part of it on the technical and functional properties, the different environmental effects, the different aspects of safety and health, and the life cycle costs. What to include, what to leave out? What to measure and finally evaluate and classify?
The assessment of ecological sustainability and health should be transparent and based on standards. EN standards have already been published for the life cycle assessment of buildings, which are already referred to in the regulations and voluntary classifications of several EU member states. Harmonized standards are also drawn up for the assessment of emissions from construction products.
The indoor air classification 2008 sets strict requirements for the indoor climate of buildings. The internationally respected M1 emission classification is one of its criteria, and more than 2500 low-emission products have already been tested according to the classification.
Energy- and material-efficient buildings can be realized with very different material choices and structural solutions. The most important thing is to use and combine different materials wisely by utilizing the best properties in terms of durability. There are no grounds for contrasting renewable and non-renewable materials, nor for using the "energy intensity" of products as any criterion. Health aspects and the usability of materials as waste must also be taken into account more precisely than before.
In improving the sustainability of construction, the focus is on actions that quickly promote the improvement of the energy efficiency of the existing building stock, without compromising on health requirements. Along with reducing the emissions of energy production, they are the most important factor in striving to quickly achieve the environmental and energy goals of the real estate and construction sector.
The choice of building materials and structural solutions should not be guided by public regulation. Among other things, planning regulations have already tried to influence the use of materials, often using unjustified environmental arguments as criteria. However, there are no significant differences in durability and/or environmental impact between the solutions made of different materials when looking at the entire life cycle of the building, including energy consumption during use and the need for maintenance and repairs. The real life cycle costs should also always be taken into account.
In public procurements, the characteristics of the procurement object and the related objectives should be determined, but the best implementation methods to reach the end result should be left to the bidders to decide. In this way, space is created for free competition, innovation and also investments. Credible construction sustainability assessment tools are needed here as well.
Pekka Vuorinen
Environment and Energy Director
Confederation of Finnish Construction Industries (CFCI)
Write a comment