Tackling Embodied Carbon - Research Paper by Oliver Baldock

TACKLING EMBODIED CARBON RESEARCH PAPER OLIVER BALDOCK. JUNE 2020. ARCH7043.

ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is instigate an understanding of potential barriers that are faced by design teams when working to reduce the embodied carbon footprint of architectural design projects. By be aware of, and understanding these barriers further research which develops from this paper will then look at how these barriers are realised, and how they can be overcome, both by the design team, and throughout the wider industry. With progress in other sectors helping to mitigate the impact of operating carbon on the life time footprint of the built environment, it is vital that embodied carbon becomes centred at our efforts to improve the sustainability of construction. This paper has two objectives: to understand the impact that current regulations and frameworks are having on the industry; to identify the barriers stopping stakeholders from tackling their emissions. This paper employs two methodologies to tackle these objectives, (1) a summary of an extensive literature review, on and around the topic, in order to understand the intricacies of the current approach to the topic from the industry, (2) an initial analysis of an industry wide survey which focuses on identifying the barriers that are preventing individuals from tackling this issue. Response to the survey have identified a number of potential barriers and hurdles that the industry needs to approach. Within this initial analysis, three are discussed: Education and engagement, capital cost, and government support. The first discusses the difference between awareness and understanding amongst the client and other industry professionals; the second looks at the cost implication of a more sustainable approach to design, and at what stage that cost implication is seen; the third looks at how government engagements in the industry can help increase the priority of embodied carbon within the design process. Whilst it is clear that education and engagement is a key route for improving the industry as a whole, from this limited survey, it appears that those professionals with the necessary expertise to help develop a sustainable mindset within a design team, also tend to have less experience, and therefore less influence. This, in turn, implies a potential additional time lag between a change in mindset and a change in design approach. Keywords: Embodied carbon, education, cost, government support.

CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION

A. The current situation

B. The current approach

II. AIMS & OBJECTIVES

III. RESEARCH CONTEXT

A. Current legislation

B. Current carbon taxation

C. Current frameworks

D. Current approaches

E. Barriers: Awareness

F. Barriers: Measuring Embodied Carbon

Burden Shifting Workflows G. Barriers: Regulations IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4 4

A. Methodology overview

B. Delimitations

V. FINDINGS

A. Demographic Study

B. Education & Engagement

C. Capital Cost

D. Government Support

VI. CONCLUSIONS

VII. REFERENCES

APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONS

APPENDIX 2: ADDITIONAL FIGURES

I. INTRODUCTION A. The current situation In May 2019, Mauna Loa Observatory recorded the highest Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Level in human history. At 414.7 parts per million (ppm), this marked a 3.5ppm increase from the previous year (NOAA, 2019). Greenhouse gases, of which CO2 makes up 60%, are vital to life on Earth. Furthermore, it is understood that 97% of publishing climate scientists agree that humans are currently causing global warming. (Cook et al., 2020) According to the UK Green Building Council [UKGBC], the built environment contributes 40% of the UK’s total territorial carbon footprint (UKGBC, 2019), with 30-40% of all worldwide primary energy being used inside buildings (Ramesh, 2010). Of that, over half [185 MTCO2] is directly attributed to the total operational and embodied carbon footprint of the built environment.(UKGBC, 2019)

II. AIMS & OBJECTIVES This paper includes the findings of a survey conducted among a range of stakeholders within the UK construction industry. The aim of this survey is to develop an initial understanding of the current obstacles to reducing the embodied carbon of construction. This survey is part of wider research into the carbon footprint of construction, particularly housing in the UK, which explores the capital costs and social benefits of improvements within the industry’s emissions. In order to address this aim, the wider research targets the following objectives: • • • •

To understand the impact that current regulations and frameworks have on the industry. To identify the barriers stopping stakeholders from tackling their emissions. To discuss whether these barriers are real or perceived. To explore potential opportunities arising from cleaner construction.

B. The current approach Efforts in the former have procured significant results with the continued decarbonisation of the UK’s power sector, reducing its footprint by 75% since 2012 (CCC, 2019). Moreover, the banning of gas boilers from new homes under the Future Homes Standard has meant the promotion of heat pumps, and to some extent, photovoltaics, within new developments, further improving operational emissions. However, whilst sustainability standards reward improved building fabric efficiency, only few consider the embodied carbon of the assessed projects (Giesekam and Pomponi, 2018). This, in part, is due to the Government’s scrapping of its 2016 Zero Carbon Homes policy, in an attempt to increase house building by removing “bureaucracy”. (HM Treasury, 2015). This forced the closure of the public-private body Zero Carbon Hub which supported collaboration between industry and government in attempting to deliver higher efficiency standards within homes. This deference to the construction industry is apparent in the gap between Approved Document Part L and guidance by the London Energy Transformation Initiative [LETI]. With the improvements of the power sector driving down operational carbon, the embodied footprint of proposals becomes more significant. Current annual embodied carbon emissions are, alone, higher than the Green Construction Boards target for 2050 total emissions. Furthermore, it is estimated that 85% of the building stock seen in 2050 has already been built. (CIOB, 2013) Therefore, whilst significant work must be undergone in improving the operation of existing buildings, it is vital that new construction must do no further harm. 1

This paper addresses the first two. The first is focused on in Research Context (III) but also discussed in Findings (IV). The second is, again, covered by both, but is the main deliberation of the Findings (IV). The Research Context acts a summary of a more extensive literature review, which is available upon request. III. RESEARCH CONTEXT A. Current legislation Sturgis critiques Royal Institute for Chartered Surveyor’s [RICS] methodology for carbon assessments stating that whilst BS EN 15976: 2011 sets out principles for whole life carbon assessments, it is open to interpretation, and does not provide guidance on an assessment methodology. This has meant that results have been unreliable and incomparable. (Sturgis, 2017) In response, RICS released a professional statement on the Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment. This provides guidance for calculating embodied and operational carbon over a building’s lifecycle. (RICS, 2019) To be compliant, an initial assessment must be completed prior to the start of technical design, impacting on the tender process. The guidance also comments on the reliability of the information provided, setting out a hierarchy as such: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Materials delivery records BIM model Bill of Quantities Estimations from drawings

This creates opportunities for assessments at all RIBA stages,

from Stage 6 with direct supplier information (1), to Stage 2 information from CAD plans and a preliminary understanding of materiality (4). This flexibility allows for opportunities, despite the potential unreliability, to understand building performance from the initial stages of design. However, the RICs methodology ends with the assessment. Beyond an improved understanding of how our buildings are performing, what opportunities does this value create? B. Current carbon taxation The 2018 Hackitt review provides two conclusions particularly relevant to this discussion. The first, from Dame Judith Hackitt: “What is initially designed is not what is being built, and quality assurance of materials and people is seriously lacking.” The second, from within recommendations for a new framework: “Provide...incentives for the right behaviours, and effective sanctions for poor performance...a single coherent regulatory body that oversees dutyholders’ management of buildings in scope across their entire lifecycle...with more effective change control processes and information provision.” (UK Government, 2018) Zero Carbon Hub stated, in 2014, that the energy performance gap between what is designed and what is built was due to: • •

•

Over-reliance of Building Control Bodies on third party information Insufficient time, money or incentives to focus on the building’s energy performance in building control verification Lack of clarity over evidence required under Part L & Part F.

These conclusions call for clearer regulations for managing building processes, with greater transparency and clearer, enforced penalties for when targets are not met. There is, currently, no mandatory carbon taxation directly imposed on the built environment. The London Energy Assessment Guidance provides recommendations for carbon offsetting but passes responsibility to local councils. In London a carbon offset price exists, currently set at £95 per tonne pertaining to negotiations between client and council. A 2017 Greater London Authority report recommends a banded tax with the top tier set at £194 per tonne of CO2. In context, the Shard, with an embodied carbon footprint of 1370 tonnes of CO2 (Hevia, 2012), the offset price equates to £266,000 per year, and is charged, typically, for a 30 year 2

period, making it 0.18% of the £435m build cost. (Keever et al, 2012) The same report states that taxation “should not put an unreasonable burden on development and must enable schemes to remain viable’’. This introduces a topic [discussed in Section III] about the priorities of architects, given the multitude of crises currently faced by society. C. Current frameworks In May, 2019, the UK government declared a climate emergency in an attempt to reduce overall carbon emissions by 80%, compared to 1990 levels, by 2050. The Committee for Climate Change (CCC) has advised that target instead be 100%. This aligns with claims from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that CO2 emissions need to drop 45%, from 2010 levels, by 2030 and to reach “net zero” by 2050, in order to keep global warming below 1.5oC, which is the limit for manageable changes to our environment.1 In 2013, the UK published it’s industrial strategy, Construction 2025, which aimed to “transform the sector’s productivity through innovative technologies and a more highly skilled workforce.” To do this, it proposed focusing on Digital Techniques, Offsite Manufacturing, and Whole Life Asset Performance, bringing together a cross-sector coalition of businesses, clients and research institutions, to improve the construction industry’s performance, and deliver wider reaching social benefits. Within this twelve year strategy, the following targets were proposed: • • •

a 33% reduction in the cost of construction and the wholelife cost of assets, a 50% reduction in the time taken from inception to completion of new build, a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the built environment,2

It also states that the industry and Government “strongly support the continuation of the Green Construction Board”.3 Aligned with Aim (3) of Construction 2025 strategy, the 2019 UKGBC framework focuses on ‘Net Zero Carbon’ across the life of a building with two aims. The first is to achieve zero or negative carbon emissions in construction (1.1), the second, to achieve it within the building’s annual operational energy (1.2).4 1 The IPCC report Global Warming at 1.5oC covers an in depth analysis as to why governments should consider this a vital target in order to limit the effects of climate change. It also stresses the extreme differences between the effect of global warming at an increase or 1.5oC compared to 2oC, and in dire circumstances, 3oC+. The report suggests an additional 0.5oC temperature rise could, among many other things, increase the proportion of the world’s population affected by water scarcity by 50% leading to further climate migration increasing burdens on governments around the world. 2 This target is compared to a 1990 baseline as set out in the GCB’s Low Carbon Routemap for the Built Environment, which calls for an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050, stating that it does not represent any commitment 3 a charity with over 400 member organisations that was established in 2007 by the construction and property industry, it has the mission of improving the sustainability of the built environment 4 A third potential aim, yet to be defined, focuses on net zero carbon across the whole life.

To achieve these aims they suggest two methodologies: the first is the undertaking and disclosure of a whole life carbon assessment (2.1); and the second is the measurement and offsetting of any embodied carbon impacts at completion (2.2). This framework further develops three principles to aid movement towards net zero carbon buildings. These are: • • •

Polluter pays Improve measurement and transparency Encourage action today and tighten requirements over time.

The second and third principles not only align with the recommendations of the IPCC and the Construction 2025 strategy, but also with Architect’s Declare, and outside of construction, Extinction Rebellion, who have three demands of the UK government: • Tell the truth • Act now • Beyond politics (Extinction Rebellion, 2019) Transparency is fundamental in understanding both whether industry targets are met and at which point improvements can be made in the construction process. It is also crucial for assigning responsibility to ensure the “polluter pays”, and to understand how carbon taxation and/or incentives can be effective. D. Current approaches These are two approaches, from a non-exhaustive list, to reducing emissions. They overlap but provide an inkling of potential solutions for this issue. Bioregional’s One Planet Living comprises ten principles which put people first and centre around the notion of consuming less and investing in better quality projects. It develops, from grass roots, approaches that can help create sustainable communities working to live within the planet’s means. Secondly, a fabric first approach is promoted within many currently available certifications. Rather than building less, the principle is to build better, improving the fabric efficiency of new construction to reduce emissions. Architect’s Declare promotes this additive approach calling for members“to contribute positively to mitigating climate breakdown” and “encourage our clients to adopt this approach”. (Architect’s Declare, 2019) Both approaches imply a need for reconsidering contracts with clients who demand over-developments of sites without 3

regards for resident, community or environment. E. Barriers: Awareness Awareness of the environmental impacts of human activities has improved rapidly over recent years due, in part, to efforts by high-level campaigners and their activities (Knight, 2016). This is evidenced by client pressure being a major worldwide cause of increased “green” building starts. (Dodge Data & Analytics, 2018) Nevertheless, the UKGBC considers awareness to still be a barrier to improvements within the industry. Within the design team, this can manifest as not understanding the impact of decisions, especially regarding materiality, lacking access to relevant resources, and/or lacking the ability to communicate these issues to other design team members. It is also a result of the overwhelming amount of information available, the majority of which consists of less accessible detailed literature. This is an issue faced holistically by the industry. However, the UKGBC recognises that both operational carbon and energy efficiency as “more well established concepts” which have “clear drivers and incentives for addressing them” (UKGBC, 2019). Recent focus on these concepts has left other issues such as Embodied Carbon & Life Cycle Assessments bereft of the needed media attention. And without these assessments it is near-impossible to understand the impact of our design decisions. F. Barriers: Measuring Embodied Carbon A review of embodied carbon assessment practices indicates that whilst academic literature is limited, interviews with practitioners in the industry suggests that the current challenges for embodied carbon calculations fall into the following categories: •

Lack of cross-industry environmental product declaration (EPD) database • Geographic variation in data collection • Incomplete, unreliable or inaccessible data sources • Life Cycle Stage uncertainty • Data inclusion: Structure vs. All • Lack of benchmarks • Lack of consistency and/or transparency • Lack of knowledge dissemination (De Wolf, Pomponi and Moncaster, 2017) Burden Shifting A reduction in carbon at one stage of a building’s lifecycle does not guarantee a reduction in total emissions. It can shift

the burden to another stage. To appreciate this, emissions need to be analysed and predicted for all lifecycle stages. Better informed decisions at earlier stages, about form, orientation, size, materiality, can instigate more prominent reductions in emissions. (Matossian and Delimata, 2019) Whilst there is a larger margin for error when predicting emissions at the earlier stages of a project using a simplified methodology (Malmqvist et al., 2018), there is significant benefit to encouraging easier entry into the analysis process. (Anand & Amor, 2017). Furthermore, whilst results may not be accurate “they can be very valuable from a comparative perspective”. (Dodge Data & Analytics, 2018) Lewandowska et al. undertook a study of six methodological variants to a full life cycle assessment to understand how much the final value of the test subject’s footprint varied as differing stages of analysis were simplified. In conclusion the research demonstrates that accurately assessing the production of building materials and the use of the building are important in producing results closer to a full Life Cycle Analysis (LCA).

lack of available data and the overreliance on unreliable early stage values. This will help instigate preliminary lifecycle assessments and allow for a greater scope in emission reductions. (Khasreen, Banfill and Menzies, 2009) Although architect’s predominance remains from cradle to gate, they are best placed to set out a strategy for gate through to grave, rather than risk that later decision-making, made by another stakeholder, contradicts earlier visions. Despite the redefinition of RIBA’s Stage 7, there is often a vast knowledge gap between what is required for a design strategy, and the same for the maintenance and even end of life. Focusing on deconstruction from the project outset, and considering the reuse of materials past the project’s end of life, can have huge impacts on the embodied carbon footprint. (Densley Tingley and Davison, 2012) This also encourages discussions around the accountability of recycled materials, but this topic is large enough for its own paper. (Anand & Amor, 2017) IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Workflows A. Methodology overview Whilst BIM-enabled software can produce an accurate and data rich model of our proposals, the level of information it requires to do so, alongside reported “clunkiness” and necessary team member training, is often why the software is avoided until later stages of the process (Baldock, 2018). Therefore, it is often the case that life cycle assessments only become feasible, or time-worthy, at the point when much of the fundamental design decisions have already been made. Current practice workflows should also be added as a current challenge. G. Barriers: Regulations The current focus of regulations on operational energy, and the lack of standardisation within LCA reporting restrict the consideration of embodied carbon as an effective performance indicator. (Anand & Amor, 2017). In response, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors released guidance on both the measuring and reporting of embodied and operating carbon to facilitate benchmarking for carbon performance within the built environment (RICS, 2019). Further to the previous chapter, RICS developed either dynamic benchmarking for assessments undertaken at earlier design stages, or static benchmarking for whole life carbon assessments completed on ‘as built projects.

Given the exploratory nature of the study, a qualitative approach was considered the best-suited for this research (Blumberg et al., 2011). Data collection was based on secondary data from existing literature and resources as well as primary survey data. The literature review was based on searches for peer reviewed papers in online databases, such as Google Scholar and Academia with search phrases such as “reducing embodied carbon within the construction industry”. Further research included analysis of recent literature and strategies actioned by the UK Government and organisations such as the UKGBC, LETI & CCC. The survey format is based on three small pilot studies (n=15) What is your job �tle? developed with researchers and designers from different backgrounds. The questions encourage engagement with respondents who differ in their understanding of the topic. This, intentionally, produces a holistic overview of those working in the industry. Fig.1 What is your current job title? Appointment Assistant Architect

This enables benchmarking to happen at every stage, and will, become part of existing frameworks which form contractual obligations. This feeds into new carbon taxations which target specific actors within the design and construction team.

Architectural Assistant Associate Developer Director Engineer Researcher

Developing benchmarking at every stage can correct current 4

Sales assistant Student

This was an online survey, the respondents were generated through personal and professional connections and as such was a limited scope with 70 responses from a range of professions (see Appendix 2 for further details.)

perhaps at university level, establishing a time-lag between the engagement of design team members, and definitive action on projects, a delay ill-afforded by the impending climate years in industry vs understanding of topic catastrophe. Fig.2 Experience of respondent vs. confidence

B. Delimitations This research focuses on embodied carbon and the influence that architects can have within the current processes of design. This refers to LCA stages A1 through to B5 with the intention that this research instigates discussions, at least within my current practice, regarding C1 through to D. This limit was chosen due to time pressures and current availability of resources within the research. The breadth of this survey is extensive. This paper only discusses the initial findings and implications. Further data gathering and analysis over the next research period will better inform both the conclusions and recommendations for moving this topic forward.

eﬀec�veness of company vs frequency of client discussions. Less than a year

1 to 2 years

Economic

5 to 10 years

10 to 20 years

20 years+

Fig.3 Frequency of discussion vs. perceived success.

Technical

Always

Social

Not at all well

Extremely well How well do you think your company is doing in reducing the embodied carbon of its projects?

Fig.4 Thematic dissection of responses Theme

Topic

Subtopic

Government Support

Guidance

Clarity of guidance Consistency of guidance

Economic

V. FINDINGS

2 to 5 years

How many years have you worked in architecture / construction?

How often is the embodied carbon of the project discussed with the client?

The nature of the survey is qualitative, focusing on personal understanding and awareness of the issues discussed. It consists of 40 questions, 24 of which are closed-ended, whilst the rest are open. Whilst the closed-ended questions are intended to be a point of comparison between the respondents, the large proportion of open-ended responses will help inform the questions and structure for the planned interviews at the next stage of research.

Not at all confident

How confident are you with discussing issues around embodied carbon?

Personal understanding of embodied carbon, Company’s engagement with embodied carbon, Engagement with embodied carbon in current projects, Capital cost and industry awareness of embodied carbon,

Never

• • • •

Very confident

The survey questions (see Appendix 1) are broken into four sections:

Capital Cost

New Building

Programme Social

Engagement

Design Team Engagement Client Engagement

A. Demographic Study Within the respondents to this survey (n=70) a balance was shown in experience within the industry (Fig.1) with 25% of participants having worked in architecture for 5 to 10 years. However, whilst there is weak positive correlation between the experience of those surveyed and their confidence in the topic, it is not significant: r(45) = .291, p < .053 (Fig.2). This would suggest that the awareness and education of younger practitioners of the industry is greater than those with more experience, and, importantly, more influence. Those with greater confidence have more discussions on the topic within their design team, and subsequently, client. It could also be inferred from this that the industry education necessary to push forward this topic is happening outside of the workplace, 5

Responsibility Point of Engagement

Awareness Social Impact Technical

Materials Over-design Material Sourcing Material Transport Technology Awareness Industry

Supply Chain Bureaucracy

Further to the above, the size of the practice has no correlation with how well the practice is viewed to be doing in reducing the embodied carbon of it’s projects. Similarly, the frequency of topic discussions appears completely disconnected from the apparent performance of firms which initiates further

questioning into how best to compare and contrast the conduct of industry partners. (Fig.3) Through the analysis of open ended responses a number of consistent themes emerged and within those themes, specific barriers which are impeding the reduction of embodied carbon within built environment projects. They are into, at a high level, four themes, as shown Fig.4. This categorisation, even at the lowest level, is not discrete, and subtopics overlap, which becomes part of the discussion. When directly asked about potential barriers to reducing embodied carbon, Fig.5 demonstrates the priorities of the Barriers to reducing embodied carbon responses as coded against the table above. There are a number of inferences from this.

Economic

Material Alternatives

It has helped the team understand the issues in depth and be conversant with them with the client and design team.”

Client Engagement

Social

Social Perception

Technical

“We were able to have an open conversation with the client about the capability for the project to achieve net zero carbon in use, and they have agreed to further this work, with the understanding that it may support potential additional funding streams. We have also used it to tentatively feel out future work with the same client.

Fig.5 Weighting of themes within the responses Capital Cost

Political & Legal

the client in advocating for improvements within the built environment. The client relationship is critical for pushing this topic given the prevalence of cost and education within the analysis. Despite this, there is a 14% disparity in frequency between topic discussions with design team members and with clients. However, understanding the client’s motivations for (not) engaging is pivotal in finding a viable solution for all parties. To quote a respondent when asked about the benefits of assessing the project’s carbon footprint;

Design Team Education Client Education

Fig.7 Breakdown of capital cost concerns

Existing Building

breakdown of capital cost (barriers to reducing)

Barriers to reducing embodied carbon

Awareness

Political & Legal

Design Team Engagement

Economic Social

Supply Chain

Do you think awareness and understanding of Guidance embodied carbon con�nues to be a hurdle Government Support to reducing Software the carbon footprint of the construc�on industry? Improvements

id gu bu

il d

in g

re g

u la

ti o

ty c ie so

a ti

gove r nmen

polit ics

precedent studies

enga gem

t back ing

matr er ial

Social Perception

ent

clien t enga gem

sour cing

m r ia

in d

u st

Lo w ca rb

Awareness

on na

in t

a lt

Awareness continues to be a hurdle

What impact does reducing embodied en

c ti

st ru

a in

op tom tru c tio

me th

co ns

ina ble

ise d

su sta

What impact does reducing embodied carbon have on cost? od s

Taxation

Government Support

s ig

co n

t iv

Design Team Engagement Understanding continues to be a hurdle Supply Chain Both continue to be a hurdle Guidance

Software Improvements

ent

at e

Client Education Existing Building

Not sure

s ig

Client Engagement

Design Team Education

Fig.6 Awareness & understanding of embodied carbon as a barrier

ati on

awareness

Technical

t ed uc

log y tec hno

ti o

Material Alternatives

education

Social

cli en

ti on

ce p

er al p so ci

e ts

l im

c ia

t io ti fi

Economic

ce r

Reduction Overdesign

Capital Cost

Political & Legal

Taxation Material Sourcing

Technical

Material Sourcing Reduction

Fig.8 Impact of reducing embodied carbon on cost

Overdesign

Increases capital cost

B. Education & Engagement

Decreases capital cost Stage 00 No impact Stage 01 Not sure Stage 02

The first is the prevalence of socially themed topics, with Stage 03 Increases capital cost engagement and education of both the client and the design Stage 04 impact does that reducing embodied carbonDecreases havecapital oncostcost? team being a priority for participants.What Fig.3 indicates whilst Stage 05 No impact Stage 06 the majority of respondents (73%) consider both the industry’s Stage 07 Not sure awareness and understanding of the topic of embodied carbon to be a considerable hurdle in its improvement, it is important At what point in the process is this cost impact seen? to understand the difference between the two. By awareness Stage 00 A1 - A3: Product Stage we consider participation in the topic to be at a level at which Stage 01 A4: Transport clients would engage in comparison to the understanding A5: Construction Methods Stage 02 B1 - B5: Longevity & Maintenance Stage 03 and education required by design team members to make an Increases capital cost C1 - C5: End of Life Stage 04 effective impact on a project’s footprint. Decreases capital cost D: Recovery & Reuse Stage 05 No impact

Fig 4 emphasises the importance of this awareness, education and subsequent engagement among both the design team and Not sure

Stage 06 Stage 07

Fig.9 At RIBA stages

6 A1 - A3: Product Stage A4: Transport

Fig.10 At LCA stages

A1 - A3: Pro

A5: Constructio

B1 - B5: Longevity & M

C1 - C5

D: Recov

how to improve awareness

For this particular respondent, it is stated that development and cost of low-carbon alternatives of key materials provides the biggest challenge in reducing the embodied carbon of the project. Early engagement with, and education of, the client and design team established potential solutions which mitigated concerns regarding capital cost, and focused on issues of sourcing alternative materials.

Fig.12 Improving understanding & awareness in the industry Capital Cost

Political & Legal Economic

Material Alternatives Client Engagement

Social

Social Perception

Technical

Design Team Education Client Education Existing Building Awareness awareness how to improve Design Team Engagement

C. Capital Cost

Supply Chain Guidance Government Support Software Improvements

Political & Legal

Taxation

Economic

Material Sourcing

Social

Reduction

Technical

Overdesign

Fig.13 Breakdown of political concerns amongst responses

Political & Legal Economic Social

gover nment back ing

Technical

id an

& ta rg

et s

The second inference from Fig.5 is that Capital Cost is the Capital Cost most significant barrier, or concern, to reducing the embodied Material Alternatives Client Engagement carbon on projects. However, the term ‘Capital Cost’ is broad Social Perception in itself, and within the built environment can refer to items Design Team Education such as the cost of land acquisition and site preparation to the Client Education Existing Building fees of the design team. To further illustrate this point Fig.7 Awareness demonstrates that responses regarding cost further refer to a Design Team Engagement Supply Chain general balance of concern over increased cost and time of Guidance training, in order to “dispell [sic] the attitude that low carbon Government Support design is more expensive”, to the wider industry pushing “costSoftware Improvements Taxation effective” low carbon alternatives for traditional materials. Material Sourcing Reduction

rds

Very confident

sta nda s and

How confident are you with discussing issues around embodied carbon?

cat ion

Not at all confident

tax ati

cer tifi

Increases cost

No Impact

What impact does working to reduce embodied carbon have on capital cost?

Decreases Cost

Fig.11 Understanding of topic vs. impact on capital cost.

Further analysis (Fig.11) notes that those with a better, self reported, understanding (confidence) of the topic have achieved a reduction of embodied carbon within projects understanding of topictheir vs impact on costwithout an increase in capital cost.

building regulatio ns

Moreover, whilst over half (53%) of respondents correlate a reduction in embodied carbon with an increase in capital cost, a third remain unsure. (Fig.8) This is replicated when respondents are asked to locate the cost impact within the project timeline. Despite the general consistency of the results, two significant peaks are seen at Concept and Technical design in Fig.9 and Product Stage and Construction Methods in Fig.10. This aligns with conclusions from Fig.6 which indicate that earlier design stages, where education is paramount, and the period of material specification, where industry engagement is vital, are deemed most impactful to the capital cost of the project.

Overdesign

D. Government Support Fig.12 breaks down the response to what participants think would improve awareness and education amongst industry professionals. The overwhelming majority mentioned improved legislation and regulation, squarely setting the responsibility for hitting the UK Government’s targets for the industry on the UK Government. This is clearly seen in both current news and these responses with regards to the inclusion of structural timber within the proposed combustibles ban (Hurst, 2020), and the ‘Retrofirst’ campaign from the Architect’s Journal which prioritises retrofit over demolition. Whilst references to certification and standards, and to building regulations were an evenly balanced majority, a significant mention was made of increasing carbon taxation in order to “make it a client priority”. (Fig.13) The relationship between government intervention and client engagement, and to some extent industry engagement, is a vital tool in not only prioritising embodied carbon as the issue to be tackled within the built environment, but also allowing that issue to be tackled at a faster pace than would otherwise be achievable.

VI. CONCLUSIONS The analysis above draws out three key topics from a mass of plausible conclusions. It also excludes a significant amount of detailed ideas and information which will form more further research that examines possible routes the industry can take to overcome the barriers discussed above. We find that whilst the general public’s awareness of the climate catastrophe has increased significantly over the past few years, the engagement and education of built environment professionals has not improved at the same rate. Furthermore, where improvement has been seen, it has come from those entering into the industry with less experience and less influence. Moreover, whilst the industry has began to engage in this global conversation through initiatives such as Architect’s Declare and Architect’s Climate Action Network (ACAN), the necessary backing and support from the UK Government has been found lacking, and the efforts of those involved in the former have failed when faced with a client’s prejudiced views of potential capital costs. The next steps within this research is to further the three routes of enquiry above, further understanding how they interact and influence each other to strategically develop a roadmap which can begin to engage stakeholders as collaborators, and generate wider conversations about industry change.

VII. REFERENCES Anand, C. and Amor, B. (2017). Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, pp.408-416. Architects Declare. (2019). UK Architects Declare Climate And Biodiversity Emergency. [online] Available at: https:// www.architectsdeclare.com/ [Accessed 1 June 2020]. Baldock, O. (2018). Machine Learning Report. Bioregional. (n.d). One Planet Living. [online] Available at: https://www.bioregional.com/one-planet-living [Accessed 12 November 2019]. Blumberg, B.; Cooper, D.R.; Schindler, P.S. (2011) Business Research Methods, 3rd ed. (European Edition); McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA. Chartered Institute of Building. (2013). Sustainable Construction And The Green Deal. [online] All Party Parliamentary Group for Excellence in the Built Environment. Available at: http://cic.org.uk/admin/resources/charetered-institute-of-building.pdf [Accessed 1 March 2020]. Committee on Climate Change. (2019). Reducing UK emissions - 2018 Progress Report to Parliament - Committee on Climate Change. [online] Available at: https://www.theccc. org.uk/publication/reducing-uk-emissions-2018-progress-report-to-parliament/ [Accessed 6 May 2019]. Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R., Jacobs, P. and Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying The Consensus On Anthropogenic Global Warming In The Scientific Literature. Densley Tingley, D. and Davison, B. (2012). Developing an LCA methodology to account for the environmental benefits of design for deconstruction. Building and Environment, 57, pp.387-395. De Wolf, C., Pomponi, F. and Moncaster, A. (2017). Measuring embodied carbon dioxide equivalent of buildings: A review and critique of current industry practice. Energy and Buildings, 140, pp.68-80. Dodge Data & Analytics. (2018). World Green Building Trends 2018 Smartmarket Report. [online] World Green Building Council. Available at: https://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/world-green-building-trends-2018-smartmarket-report-publication [Accessed 1 June 2020]. Extinction Rebellion. (2019). The Truth - Extinction Rebel9

lion. [online] Available at: https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/ [Accessed 16 August 2019]. Giesekam, J. and Pomponi, F. (2018). Briefing: Embodied carbon dioxide assessment in buildings: guidance and gaps. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability, 171(7), pp.334-341. Greater London Authority. (2019). London Carbon Offset Price. [online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/ default/files/london_carbon_offset_price_-_aecom_.pdf [Accessed 6 May 2019]. Hevia, A. (2012). The Elephant In The Room: Embodied Energy. [online] Architects Journal. Available at: https://www. architectsjournal.co.uk/home/the-elephant-in-the-room-embodied-energy/8637400.article [Accessed 1 June 2020]. HM Government. (2018). Carbon Offset Funds Guidance. [online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/ files/carbon_offsett_funds_guidance_2018.pdf [Accessed 7 May 2019]. HM Government. (2013). Construction 2025 [online] London. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210099/ bis-13-955-construction-2025-industrial-strategy.pdf [Accessed 27 May 2019]. HM Government. (2019). Construction Sector Deal. [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/731871/ construction-sector-deal-print-single.pdf [Accessed 6 May 2019]. HM Government. (2017). Creating a Digital Built Britain: what you need to know. [online] Available at: https://www.gov. uk/guidance/creating-a-digital-built-britain-what-you-need-toknow [Accessed 7 May 2019]. HM Government. (2018). Independent Review Of Building Regulations And Fire Safety. [online] UK Government. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/707785/Building_a_Safer_Future_-_web.pdf [Accessed 6 May 2019] Hurst, W., (2020). RIBA Calls On Government To Exclude Structural Timber From Combustibles Ban. [online] Architects Journal. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal. co.uk/riba-calls-on-government-to-exclude-structural-timber-from-combustibles-ban/10047152.article [Accessed 28 May 2020]. Keever, J. and Ward, A. (2012). The Shard, London: Cost of Europe’s Tallest Building. [online] TheRichest. Available at:

https://www.therichest.com/business/technology/shard-londonbridge/ [Accessed 6 May 2019]. Khasreen, M., Banfill, P. and Menzies, G. (2009). Life-Cycle Assessment and the Environmental Impact of Buildings: A Review. Sustainability, 1(3), pp.674-701. Knight, K. (2016). Public awareness and perception of climate change: a quantitative cross-national study. Environmental Sociology, 2(1), pp.101-113. Lewandowska, A., Noskowiak, A., Pajchrowski, G. and Zarebska, J. (2014). Between full LCA and energy certification methodology—a comparison of six methodological variants of buildings environmental assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(1), pp.9-22. Matossian, H. and Delimata, R. (2019). Passivhaus. Moncaster, A., Birgisdottir, H., Malmqvist, T., Nygaard Rasmussen, F., Houlihan Wiberg, A. and Soulti, E. (2018). Embodied Carbon Measurement, Mitigation and Management Within Europe, Drawing on a Cross-Case Analysis of 60 Building Case Studies. Embodied Carbon in Buildings, pp.443-462. NOAA. (2019). Carbon Dioxide Levels Hit Record Peak In May. [online] Research.noaa.gov. Available at: https://research. noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2461/Carbon-dioxidelevels-hit-record-peak-in-May [Accessed 1 August 2019]. UK Green Building Council. (2019). Net Zero Carbon Buildings: A Framework Definition. [ebook] London: UKGBC. Available at: https://www.ukgbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Net-Zero-Carbon-Buildings-A-framework-definition.pdf [Accessed 6 May 2019]. UK Green Building Council. (2019). Practical how-to guide: Measuring Embodied Carbon on a Project. [online] Available at: https://www.ukgbc.org/sites/default/files/UK-GBC%20Embodied%20Carbon%20guide.pdf [Accessed 7 May 2019]. Ramesh, T., Prakash, R. and Shukla, K. (2010). Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. Energy and Buildings, 42(10), pp.1592-1600. RetroFirst, (2020). Retrofirst – A Campaign By The Architects’ Journal. [online] Architectsjournal.co.uk. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/retrofirst [Accessed 3 June 2020]. Royal Institution Chartered Surveyors. (2019). Methodology to calculate embodied carbon. [online] Available at: https://www.globalabc.org/uploads/media/default/0001/01/5214e617d8b555f132431aeddfc95e3907d41b2d. pdf [Accessed 7 May 2019]. 10

Royal Institution Chartered Surveyors. (2019). RICS Building Carbon Database. [online] Available at: https://wlcarbon. rics.org/Default.aspx [Accessed 6 May 2019]. Royal Institution Chartered Surveyors. (2017). Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment. [ebook] London: Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. Available at: https:// www.rics.org/globalassets/rics-website/media/news/whole-lifecarbon-assessment-for-the--built-environment-november-2017. pdf [Accessed 6 May 2019]. Sturgis, S. (2017). Targeting Zero. Milton: RIBA Publications. UK Green Building Council. (2019). Net Zero Carbon Buildings: A Framework Definition. [ebook] London: UKGBC. Available at: https://www.ukgbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Net-Zero-Carbon-Buildings-A-framework-definition.pdf [Accessed 6 May 2019]. Zero Carbon Hub. (2014). Closing The Gap Between Design And As Built Performance. [online] Zero Carbon Hub. Available at: http://www.zerocarbonhub.org/sites/default/files/ resources/reports/Design_vs_As_Built_Performance_Gap_ End_of_Term_Report_0.pdf [Accessed 1 June 2020].

APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONS

27.

Is there a particular embodied carbon target which you are aiming for with this project? (N=32)

What is your current job title? (N=54)

28.

If yes, what is that target? (N=8)

How many years have you worked in architecture/construction? (N=54)

29.

If yes, what consequence is there for the project if the target is not achieved? (N=6)

How confident are you with discussing issues around embodied carbon? (N=48)

30.

When attempting to reduce the embodied carbon of a project, where should the design team’s efforts be prioritised? (N=32)

How familiar are you with the following documents?

31.

Is a specific issue hindering you from reducing the embodied carbon footprint of this current project? (N=28)

32.

How could this challenge be overcome? If unsure, please state. (N=23)

33.

Have or will you (or the project team) produce Access and Maintenance documents for this project? (N=32)

34.

If you have/will produce maintenance documents, will they consider End of Life and Reuse (Stages C & D of the Life Cycle Assessment) (N=30)

35.

In your opinion, what impact does working to reduce embodied carbon have on capital cost? (N=31)

36.

At what RIBA Plan of Work stage would you expect this impact on cost to be seen? (N=27)

37.

At what LCA stage would you expect this impact on cost to be seen? (N=25)

38.

Do you think awareness and understanding of embodied carbon continues to be a hurdle to reducing the carbon footprint of the construction industry? (N=31)

39.

What, in particular, would help improve awareness and understanding among industry professionals? (N=28)

40.

Is there anything else you would like to add about any of the topics discussed? (N=6)

Energy Roadmap 2050 by European Commission (N=49) Net Zero by the Committee on Climate Change (N=51) The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan by HM Government (N=48) Climate Emergency Design Guide by LETI (N=50) 2030 Climate Challenge by RIBA (N=49) Sustainable Outcomes Guide by RIBA (N=48) 5.

What do you consider to be the biggest challenge to reducing the embodied carbon of a built environment project? If unsure, please state. (N=41)

Which do you believe is more important to focus on: the immediate embodied carbon of construction or the longer-term carbon footprint from a building’s operation? (N=47)

How many staff does your company employ? (N=44)

How well do you think your company is doing in reducing the embodied carbon of its projects? (N=39)

What mechanisms does your company have in place to assess the sustainability performance of projects? If unsure, please state. (N=35)

10.

What do these mechanisms do well? (N=32)

11.

How could these mechanisms be improved? (N=29)

12.

In which sector is the project? (N=37)

13.

At what stage is the project? (N=37)

14.

What do you consider to be the top three design priorities of this project? (N=36)

15.

How often is the embodied carbon of the project discussed within the design team? (N=35)

16.

How often is the embodied carbon of the project discussed with the client? (N=35)

17.

Assuming a sustainability agenda exists for this project, who is the most engaged? (N=32)

18.

Is there an actor missing from this list? If so, please state where you would rank them? (N=12)

19.

Who you believe should be responsible for assessing the embodied carbon footprint of this project? (N=33)

20.

Is there an actor missing from this list? If so, please state where you would rank them? (N=3)

21.

Has the carbon footprint of this project been assessed? (N=33)

22.

If yes, who was it assessed by? (N=22)

23.

If yes, was this process beneficial? (N=26)

24.

Please provide evidence to support your answer where possible. (N=15)

25.

Who you believe should be responsible for minimising the embodied carbon footprint of this project? (N=32)

26.

Is there an actor missing from this list? If so, please state where you would rank them? (N=8)

How long have you been working in the industry?

APPENDIX 2: ADDITIONAL FIGURES What are the priori�es on your current project?

How long have you been working in the industry?

What are the priorities on your current project?

Priority #1 Less than 1 year 1 to 2 years

Priority #2

br ief requirements

Priority #3 sustainabilit y

sustainabilit y

capital cost

qualit y of space

func tion of space

qualit y of space

social perception

br ief requirements

aesthetic

qualit y of space

func tion of space

br ief requirements

sustainabilit y

social perception

optimised construc tion

social impac t

capital cost

aesthetic

flexibilit y

building retrofit

optimised construc tion

programme

func tion of space

programme

building retrofit

social impac t

building retrofit

optimised constr uc tion

programme

2 to 5 years 5 to 10 years 10 to 15 years

How conﬁdent are you in discussing issues around embodied carbon? 15 to 20 years 20+ years

How confident are you with discussing issues around embodied carbon?

Political & Legal Economic Social Technical

How was the measurement of embodied carbon useful?

how was the measurement process beneﬁcial?

Political & Legal Economic

Technical

s es en

cost

so f ep

t io

te ch

l im

s ig

c ia

How familiar are you with the following documents?

lp e

How familiar are you with the following documents?

c ia

Very confident

c ie

gu id

an ce

& ta rg

Not at all confident

ar e

p ro

g ra

ve lo

capital cost

Social

et s

Energy Roadmap 2050 from European Commission engagement

client engagement

de si

po li t

Net Zero from Committee on Climate Change

ic s in du

m at

st ry

er ia ls

go v er

c ti

c ra

tr u

Contractor

Quantity Surveyor

Client

Engineer

Architect

Who should be responsible for minimising embodied carbon on a project?

Very familiar

cha in

iv es

Not at all familiar

rn at

Sustainable Outcomes Guide from Royal Institute of British Architects

sup ply

l al te

Who should be responsible for minimising embodied carbon?

er ia

ov e rd es ls ig ou n rc in g sp or t

2030 Climate Challenge from Royal Institute of British Architects

m at

Climate Emergency Design Guide from LETI

f to

lt r

tb a

te r

The UK Low Carbon Transition from HM Government

s ib

il it

te am

en ga

ge m

en t

Tackling Embodied Carbon - Research Paper

Articles inside

VII. REFERENCES

APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONS

VI. CONCLUSIONS