Sustainable storey Building in Municipalities
Sustainable storey building is the design and construction using methods and materials that
are resource efficient and that do not compromise the health of the environment or the associated
health and well-being of the building’s occupants, construction workers, the general public, or
future generations. This is clearly an ideal state to work towards. Building has and will always
have some impacts on the land and its resources, but these impacts should be minimized as much
as possible (Lynch and Hack, 1984). Buildings create indoor sub-environments within our larger
natural environment, with their own climate, light levels, and air and water flow systems. As
Spim says, “Buildings are mini ecosystems.” It is no wonder that the quality of those conditions
has a serious effect on occupant health and well-being (Spim, 1984).
Construction is said to be sustainable when it meets environmental challenges, responds to
social and cultural demands and delivers economic improvement. For example, a building could
be considered environmentally sustainable if the energy usage throughout the building’s life
cycle is low and it considers reusing of materials at the end of the building’s life (Blauert and Za-
dek, 1998). The fundamental concept of sustainable construction is to deliver long term affordab-
ility, quality and efficiency, value to clients and users, whilst decreasing negative environmental
impacts and increasing the economic sustainability. It requires the development of enlightened
institutions and infrastructures, appropriate management of risks and uncertainties and informa-
tion and knowledge to assure intergenerational equity and conservation of the ability of earth's
natural systems to serve humankind (Majdalani, Ajam, and Mezher, 2006). Sustainability indic-
ators of buildings is based on the argument that sustainable construction brings about the re-
quired performance with the least unfavourable environmental impact, while encouraging eco-
nomic, social and cultural improvement at a local, regional and global level (Häkkinen, 2007 ).
Sustainability is presented as an agenda that extends beyond economic viability and environ-
mental regeneration, reaching deep into the structure of social organizations, by insisting on so-
cial equity and justice (Glass, 2012). The social aspect is seen in reforms of housing and plan-
ning—a new approach to how to build, to achieve development that meets the economic, social
and environmental needs of future generations. Sustainable construction supply chain delivers
tangible benefits to the triple bottom line (TBL) that is (1) Economic Growth (2) Environmental
Sustainability and (3) Ethical/Social Performance (Glass, 2012).
According to UNEP (2006) sustainable building and construction should have characterist-
ics like; routinely designed and maintained to optimize the entire life span; sustainability consid-
erations and requirements should take in building legislation and standards; environmental as-
pects should be considered in the project and should include short-term as well as long-term as-
pects; policies and incentives provided by the government to support sustainable building and
construction practices and investors, insurance companies, property developers and buyer of
buildings are aware of sustainability considerations and should take an active role to encourage
sustainable building and construction practice.
In recent years as building form changed in the bid to gain efficiency, designers have over
looked opportunity for inclusions of green exteriors in their building forms. Interest in roof
gardens is a relatively recent phenomena even though there have been a significant amount of
flat roof in building designed in the last 50 years, whilst designers and engineers have struggled
to manage storm water, (McGillick, 2006).
The concept of sustainability in building and construction has evolved over many years.
The initial focus was on how to deal with the issue of limited resources, especially energy, and
on how to reduce impacts on the natural environment. Emphasis was placed on technical issues
such as materials, building components, construction technologies and energy related design
concepts. More recently, an appreciation of the significance of non-technical issues has grown. It
is now recognized that economic and social sustainability are important, as are the cultural her-
itage aspects of the built environment (Harlan, 2008).
Still, sustainable construction adopts different approaches and is accorded different priorities in
different countries. It is not surprising that there are widely divergent views and interpretations
between countries with developed market economies and those with developing economies.
Countries with mature economies are in the position of being able to devote greater attention to
creating more sustainable buildings by upgrading the existing building stock through the applica-
tion of new developments or the invention and use of innovative technologies for energy and ma-
terial savings, while developing countries are more likely to focus on social equality and eco-
nomic sustainability (Harlan, 2008).
There are many benefits that follow the adoption of sustainable building. Improved
health, comfort, and productivity of occupants and construction workers; and related savings for
their employers is a major benefit. Improvements in a building’s air quality and daylighting can
make for healthier and happier occupants. In a workplace context, this means reduced labour
costs and liability risk for employers, because of less absenteeism (fewer sick days) and lower
health care costs, for example indoor environment improvements. It is also evident that sustain-
able building leads also to lower construction costs, mainly through materials use reduction and
savings on disposal costs because of recycling, as well by downsizing mechanical equipment and
avoiding certain infrastructure extension fees increased building value. It is important for owners
and developers to remember that the cheapest development is not necessarily the most profitable.
Putting environmentally-sensitive features into a building enhances its quality and adds value,
just as putting in typical amenities does (Wilson, et al 1998).
In North America, people spend almost 90 percent of their time inside buildings. Poor
design and construction practices can have a significant effect on the health of the building’s oc-
cupants and can produce buildings that are expensive to operate and maintain, and costly to ren-
ovate to accommodate the occupants’ changing needs or life stages. These impacts dispropor-
tionately affect the elderly and less affluent social groups, (Girardet, 1999).
As appealing as green buildings may sound, they currently make up only a fraction of all
new building construction in North America. This is due, in part, to the existence of numerous
barriers that inhibit the wide-scale adoption of green building as well as to the large number of
actors, levels of government, and regulations involved in the building industry. A North Amer-
ican vision for green residential building, supported by national and local strategies, could assist
in overcoming these barriers. For example, a common vision would see resource-efficient, low
impact, energy-efficient, healthy housing as the norm instead of the exception. This could be
achieved though the creation of a common set of sustainability principles, accepted green stand-
ards, and planning tools for green construction, with each country having region/context appro-
priate policies and programs to address differences in building codes, regulatory environments,
and climate. These planning tools would be used to enhance quality of life and balance environ-
mental, economic, and social considerations, (McGillick, 2006).
References
CEPMC (2013) Statement from CEPMC on the Product Environmental Footprint Guide, 26
April 2013.
Mora E. 2007. Life cycle, sustainability and the transcendent quality of building materials.
Building and Environment. 2007;42:1329–1334
Dakwale V, Ralegaonkar R, Mandavgane S. Improving environmental performance of building
through increased energy efficiency: A review. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2011;1:211– 218
Gil-Martin M , Gonzalez-Lopez M, Grindlay A, Segura-Naya A, Aschheim M, Hernandez-
Montes E. Toward the production of future heritage structures: Considering durability in build-
ing performance and sustainability – A philosophical and historical overview. International Jour-
nal of Sustainable Built Environment. 2012; 1:269–273
Hooton R, Bickley J. Design for durability: The key to improving concrete sustainability. Con-
struction and Building Materials. 2014; 67:422–430
Fujita K, Takewaki I. Sustainable building design under uncertain structural-parameter environ-
ment in seismic-prone countries. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2011;1:142– 151
Lange D, Devaney S, Usmani A. An application of the PEER performance based earthquake en-
gineering framework to structures in fire Engineering Structures. 2014; 66:100–115
Müller H, Haist M, Vogel M. Assessment of the sustainability potential of concrete and concrete
structures considering their environmental impact, performance and lifetime. Construction and
Building Materials. 2014; 67:321–337
Cabeza L, Rincóna L, Vilariño V, Péreza G, Castella A. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life
cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014; 29:394–416
Porter K. An Overview of PEER’s Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology
Department of Civil Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
Hoogmartens R, Passel S, Acker K , Dubois M. Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA
as sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2014; 48:27–33
76
Pajchrowski G, Noskowiaka A, Lewandowska A, Strykowskia W. Materials composition or en-
ergy characteristic? What is more important in environmental life cycle of buildings? Building
and Environment. 2014; 72:15-27
Azari R. Integrated energy and environmental life cycle assessment of office building envelopes
Energy and Buildings. 2014; 82:156–162
Ramesha T, Prakasha R, Shuklab K. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. En-
ergy and Buildings. 2010; 42:1592–1600
Stephan A, Crawford R, Myttenaere K. Towards a comprehensive life cycle energy analysis
framework for residential buildings. Energy and Buildings. 2012; 55:592–600
Negro P, Mola E. Performance-Based Engineering Concepts: Past, Present and Future. 2006.
First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology.
Olmatia P, Petrini F, Gkoumas K. Fragility analysis for the Performance-Based Design of
cladding wall panels subjected to blast load. Engineering Structures. 2014; 78:112–120
Lagaros N, Garavelas A, Papadrakakis M. Innovative seismic design optimization with reliability
constraints. Computer Methods Appl. Mech. Engineering. 2008; 198:28–41
Contini G, Mola E, Negro P. Practical Performance-Based Assessment of an Existing Plan-Wise
Irregular Building. The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, 2008,
Beijing, China Re
