U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Int J Environ Res Public Health

Logo of ijerph

The Role of Green Building Materials in Reducing Environmental and Human Health Impacts

Seyed meysam khoshnava.

1 UTM Construction Research Centre, Institute for Smart Infrastructure and Innovative Construction, School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Johor 81310, Malaysia; ym.mtu@masyemdeyesk

Raheleh Rostami

2 Department of Architecture, Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari 4816119318, Iran; [email protected]

Rosli Mohamad Zin

3 School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Johor 81310, Malaysia; ym.mtu@nizilsor (R.M.Z.); ym.mtu@dammahom (M.I.)

Dalia Štreimikienė

4 Lithuanian Institute of Agrarian Economics, A. Vivulskio g. 4A-13, 03220 Vilnius, Lithuania

Abbas Mardani

5 Informetrics Research Group, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City 758307, Vietnam

6 Faculty of Business Administration, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City 758307, Vietnam

Mohammad Ismail

Conventional building materials (CBMs) made from non-renewable resources are the main source of indoor air contaminants, whose impact can extend from indoors to outdoors. Given their sustainable development (SD) prospect, green building materials (GBMs) with non-toxic, natural, and organic compounds have the potential to reduce their overall impacts on environmental and human health. In this regard, biocomposites as GBMs are environmentally friendly, safe, and recyclable materials and their replacement of CBMs reduces environmental impacts and human health concerns. This study aims to develop a model of fully hybrid bio-based biocomposite as non-structural GBMs and compare it with fully petroleum-based composite in terms of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions and human health impacts. Using a small chamber test (American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)-D5116) for VOC investigation and SimaPro software modeling with the ReCiPe method for evaluating human health impacts. Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology is used, and the results indicate that switching the fully hybrid bio-based biocomposite with the fully petroleum-based composite could reduce more than 50% impacts on human health in terms of indoor and outdoor. Our results indicate that the usage of biocomposite as GBMs can be an environmentally friendly solution for reducing the total indoor and outdoor impacts on human health.

1. Introduction

The construction industry (CI) is one of the firmest emergent sectors in rapid urbanization due to the increasing population in urban areas [ 1 ]. This urban population has rapidly grown from 751 million (1950) to 4.2 billion (2018) in the world [ 2 ]. The affluence of this urbanization makes this industry the most astonishing consumer of materials, most of them from non-renewable resources that need replenishing [ 3 ]. The sustainable development (SD) perspective for construction materials is the effective manner of resources usage to meet the demands and preconditions of existing and future generations while reducing environmental degradation [ 4 , 5 ]. There is global concern and awareness about hazards from conventional building materials (CBMs) that have both social and environmental impact [ 6 ]. Quantifying these overall impacts on environmental and human health is complex and currently unaccounted. For instance, toxic materials that affect indoor air quality (IAQ), produce toxicity pollution for the environment and human during the production stage [ 7 ]. Reduction in different characters of building materials such as embodied energy [ 8 ], energy consumption [ 9 ], CO 2 emission [ 10 ], and recyclability [ 11 ] can simultaneously affect both environmental and human health. To address these issues, new materials and technologies are urgently needed in the construction industry [ 12 ].

Above and beyond, CBMs are major contributors to indoor emission sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that have the potential to deteriorate IAQ [ 13 ]. In terms of IAQ, most programs for evaluation materials such as the U.S. Green Building Council of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system are concentrated on VOC prevention. In this regard, there are several standard tests, such as the small chamber test (American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)-D5116), for evaluating the emission of indoor VOCs. This apprehension of the health impacts of CBMs can extend from indoor to outdoor quality. Environmental burdens and human health impacts exist throughout the life of CBMs from non-renewable resources [ 14 , 15 ]. It is important to realize and simplify the complex reality effects of CBMs in the life cycle, especially the impact on human health, which is crucial. The life cycle assessment (LCA) is a common methodology for measuring the environmental weight of materials and assessing human health damage using ‘disability-adjusted life years’ (DALYs) [ 16 ].

A green building material (GBM) is an ecological, healthy, recycled, or high-performance material that is cable of minimizing its impacts on the environment and human health throughout its life cycle (LC) (including resource use, manufacturing, use, operation, disposal, and recycling) [ 17 , 18 ]. It is specially made from non-toxic, natural, and organic substances and can reduce IAQ contaminants [ 19 ]. In fact, indoor air measurement is one of the main paths used in green building schemes to manage IAQ. The IAQ refers to indoor air quality, which has been shown by pollutants and thermal conditions to affect the health, comfort, and efficiency of occupants [ 20 ]. GBMs can help divert IAQ liability claims and meet consumer needs and regulatory requirements [ 19 ].

Further, using polymeric products such as CBMs derived from the non-renewable resources is an important cause of VOC emissions indoors [ 21 ]. The U.S. Green Building Council has recognized the chlorine content of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) building materials, and dioxin emissions consistently place PVC among the worst materials for human health. To resolve this issue, replacing CBMs with biocomposites results in reduced environmental impacts and human health concerns. Previous studies have found that biocomposites as renewable resources replace non-renewable material such as petroleum-based composite from LC insight [ 22 , 23 ], mostly due to indoor air contaminants, especially VOC emission [ 24 ]. Biocomposite as GBM is made of biopolymer and natural fibers [ 25 , 26 ] that can reduce indoor air pollutants and total impacts on the environment and human health [ 19 , 20 ]. However, no work has yet been done to address the role of full biocomposites as GBMs in reducing environmental and human health impacts [ 27 , 28 ]. Therefore, the study aimed to develop a model of a fully hybrid bio-based biocomposite as GBMs, and compare it with a common fully petroleum-based composite as CBMs. Therefore, the objectives of this research are as follows:

  • ❖ to develop and specify biocomposite as GBMs and common petroleum-based composite as CBMs,
  • ❖ to evaluate and contrast their human health impacts through Simapro software,
  • ❖ to measure and compare their emissions of VOCs through small chamber test.

To achieve these objectives, the LCA method was modeled using Simapro software, and a small chamber test was used to measure the amount of VOCs emissions. The next section deals with the literature review that determines it.

2. Literature Review

2.1. biocomposite as gbms to decline voc emissions.

Sustainable development consists of several goals that coalesce into 3Ps, namely, environmental, economic, and social pillars. This unique development toward sustainability was introduced by Barbier (1987), which underlines the prospect of trade-offs among the countless economic, environmental, and social goals, with positive or negative preference [ 29 , 30 ].

Green or biocomposite materials are structural materials made from renewable resources that are biodegradable [ 31 ]. They are affected by bacteria, turning them into small substances without any harm to the environment [ 32 ]. The biocomposite materials are being researched and developed to replace non- and less eco-friendly materials used in the construction industry as potential candidates for the next generation of GBMs. The potential applications for biocomposite within buildings include framing, walls and wallboard, window frames, doors, flooring, decorative paneling, cubicle walls, and ceiling panels. The components of biocomposite are natural fibers as reinforcement and biopolymers as matrixes, which in fibers are stronger and stiffer than the polymeric matrix [ 32 , 33 ]. Totally, behaviors of biocomposites depend on certain factors, including kinds of fibers, matrix, and distribution of fibers on matrix, etc. This study addresses the natural fiber (NF) hybrid biocomposite and briefly elucidates biocomposite components.

Biopolymers are polymers derived from living organisms, such as plants and microbes. The primary sources of biopolymers are renewable, which is in contrast to petroleum [ 34 ]. Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) is the most common biopolymer that is considered as a matrix for biocomposites in this research. The mechanical properties are reported to be equal or even better than traditional thermoplastics [ 35 ]. PHB is an organic and biodegradable polymer [ 36 ]. The major benefits of PHB include: biodegradablity, made from a low-cost renewable carbon source, less expensive to produce from sugar or corn starch, produced with lower energy inputs, and releases lower greenhouse gas emissions over its life cycle compared to petrochemical plastic materials, and the key to a true cradle-to-cradle carbon cycle [ 37 ].

Usage of natural fibers (NFs) in biocomposites has received attention due to their relatively low price [ 38 ]. Moreover, they are recyclable and show more strength [ 39 ]. In fact, the main reasons for the increasing popularity of NFs are related to having consistent quality and being environmentally friendly [ 40 ]. NFs possess a moderately high specific strength and stiffness that can be used as reinforcing materials in biocomposites to make a practical structural composite material. Kenaf is a bast fiber that has a great potential as a reinforcing fiber in composites due to its superior toughness and high aspect ratio in comparison to other fibers. It has the highest carbon dioxide absorption of any plant (one ton of kenaf absorbs 1.5 tons of atmospheric CO 2 ), a valuable tool in the prevention of global warming and priority for choosing as green materials [ 41 ]. Furthermore, the study of lignocellulose fibers has revealed that the properties of fibers can be better used in hybrid composites to use as an alternative to synthetic fiber composites [ 42 , 43 ]. Among all NFs, oil palm fibers (OPFs) are hard and tough and found to be a potential reinforcement in composite applications [ 44 ]. This study considered a kenaf/OPF hybrid reinforced PHB biocomposite as a green building material (GBM).

Most research and development on biocomposites had been targeting the packaging, automobile, medical, and interior-design industries [ 45 , 46 ]. However, some important research considered the use of biocomposites in construction applications [ 40 , 47 ]. Table 1 shows the most important research about biocomposites in construction, investigating the characters and roles of the bast fibers in composites and biocomposites, which revealed that these fully bio-based materials have capabilities to be appropriate to use in the construction industry ( Table 1 ).

Bast fiber-reinforced biocomposites that are recommended as building materials.

The GBM is an ecological, healthy, recycled, or high-performance building material that is capable of efficiently minimizing impacts to Earth’s environment and damage to human health during its entire life cycle.

So, the GBMs directly affect overall quality of life due to the decline in environmental and human health impacts. The IAQ as a GBM criteria is a term that refers to the air quality within and around buildings and structures, especially as it relates to the health and comfort of building occupants. Deterioration of IAQ results from various pollution sources and is highly related to residents’ activities and ventilation performance. It can be affected by gases (including carbon monoxide, radon, and volatile organic compounds), particulates, microbial contaminants (mold, bacteria) or any mass or energy stressor that can induce adverse health conditions (California Indoor Air Quality Program). Among the emissions from interior finish materials, formaldehyde (HCHO) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are the main substances subject to evaluation by all IAQ certification organizations [ 58 ].

There are various inconsistent criteria and variables in terms of material selection, including the local availability of natural materials, high performance with various terms such as thermal and strength, cost, low energy consumption, eco-friendly, and aesthetic. People spend over 80% of their time indoors [ 59 ], and pollutants from interior finishing or non-structural building materials have a major impact on air quality and can affect occupants’ health [ 60 , 61 , 62 ]. The finishing building materials can produce health problems with some indoor air deterioration such as that caused by VOCs [ 60 , 63 ]. Therefore, careful selection of materials can improve air quality, healthy, and comfortable indoor environments [ 64 ]. In this regard, previous research has been done for different parts of non-structural building materials including floor [ 65 , 66 ], wallpaper [ 67 , 68 ], insulation [ 69 , 70 ], adhesive [ 71 ], paint [ 72 ], and wood-based panels [ 73 ]. However, the current research focused on a specific biocomposite as GBM especially fabricated from non-toxic, natural, and organic materials that could reduce IAQ contaminants and the accompanying complaints and claims. GBMs can help divert IAQ liability claims, respond to consumer demand, and provide for compliance with certain regulatory requirements [ 63 ]. However, there is no perfect GBM due to a lack at both the principle and product development levels [ 4 ].

2.2. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): Software and Human Health

The impacts of CBMs on the environment and human health have been compassed from the use of raw materials during construction, maintenance, and renovation to the emission of harmful substances through their life cycle [ 74 ]. The LCA method provides guidelines for materials selection that quantifies and compares inflows of the inputs, outputs, and the potential environmental impacts of the product system throughout its life cycle [ 75 ]. This approach is the only appropriate method for comparison of CBMs with an alternative that can lead to a reduction in the overall environmental burdening and human health impact from the construction industry [ 76 , 77 ], which has been used in construction division since 1990. Although LCA is a complex and expensive methodology, the progression of LCA software leads to resolve the complexity of this method in material science.

The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry established the LCA methodology formerly in the aim of reducing resource consumption and environmental burdening of products [ 78 , 79 , 80 ]. Principally, there are four major steps of an LCA, which include: goal and scope, inventory analysis (LCI), impact assessment (LCIA), and interpretation [ 81 ]. The LCA method provides guidelines for materials selection, which quantifies and compares inflows of materials and energy and outflows of emissions of materials on an LC perspective for possibilities of improvement. Figure 1 shows the LC of products from the cradle to the grave.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-17-02589-g001.jpg

Life cycle (LC) of products from cradle to grave.

The LC includes all the stages of a product’s life from the cradle to the grave (i.e., from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling). Furthermore, the partial product LC from resource extraction (cradle) to the factory gate is named LC from cradle to gate. LCA is an actual implementation to evaluate the environmental impact of the materials and products. There are different methods for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) such as CML 2000, ReCiPe, and EPS 2000. These methods have been settled to determine the impact of releases of damaging constituents on human health, which are considered to make allowance for outdoor sources of pollution, not indoor ones.

Recently, LCA is considered more than previously, and this led to the development of methods, software, and databases for the execution of LCA [ 82 ]. There are about or more than 40 LCA programs that can be divided according to their use as educational or commercial. Common brand software tools include OpenLCA and GaBi from Germany, SimaPro from the Netherlands, TEAM from France, etc., and they provide a framework for improving and ensuring the choice of materials [ 83 ]. SimaPro is the most widely used LCA software that offers standardization as well as the ultimate flexibility, providing an overview of the potential impact any design will have under realistic conditions [ 84 ]. This study considered it as the main software for analyzing LCA because it contains a number of impact assessment methods to calculate impacts on environmental and human health. The ReCiPe method is considered in this research due to combining the benefits of two methods, including “the problem-oriented approach at a midpoint level” from the CML-IA method and “the damage-oriented approach at an endpoint level” from Eco-indicator 99 method ( Figure 2 ). Figure 2 determines the relationship between life cycle inventory (LCI) parameters (left), midpoint indicator (middle), and endpoint indicator (right) in the ReCiPe method [ 85 ]. The ambiguity of the complex results from the CML-IA method with 18 categories at the midpoint is relatively low. However, the damage oriented approach of Eco-indicator 99 at the endpoint makes the interpretation of the results easier with only three impact categories.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-17-02589-g002.jpg

The overall structure of ReCiPe methodology [ 85 ]. LCI: life cycle inventory; DALY: disability-adjusted life year.

The ReCiPe encompasses these two groups of impact categories. In the endpoint level, most of the midpoint impact categories are reproduced by damage factors and aggregated into three endpoint categories: human health, ecosystem, and resource cost. The three endpoint categories are normalized, weighted, and aggregated into a single score.

The concept for damage assessment to human health in the LCA procedure is based on “disability-adjusted life years” (DALYs), which was introduced by Hofstetter in 1998 [ 86 ]. The values for DALYs have been stated for a wide range of diseases, including various cancers, vector-borne diseases, and non-communicable diseases [ 87 , 88 , 89 ]. In ReCiPe, the DALYs concept includes years of life lost and years of life disabled, without age weighting and discounting, as a default setting for quantifying the damage contributing to the human health area of protection within LCA.

2.3. VOC Emissions

VOCs are a large group of carbon-based chemicals that easily evaporate at room temperature. While most people can smell high levels of some VOCs, other VOCs have no odor. Odor does not indicate the level of risk from inhalation of this group of chemicals. There are thousands of different VOCs produced and used in our daily lives [ 90 ]. Breathing low levels of VOCs for long periods may increase some people’s risk of health problems [ 91 , 92 ]. Common symptoms of exposure to VOCs include:

  • ❖ Short-term (Acute) exposure to high levels of VOCs: eye, nose and throat irritation, headaches,- nausea/vomiting, dizziness, worsening of asthma symptoms,
  • ❖ Long-term (Chronic) exposure to high levels of VOCs: increased risk of cancer, liver damage, kidney damage, and central nervous system damage.

There are various agency standards regarding the demonstration of common indoor pollutants and their standards listed in Table 2 . Table 3 shows the illustration of major indoor air pollutants and their negative affects [ 81 , 93 , 94 ].

International organizations involved in air quality standards.

Major indoor air pollutants and their negative effects. VOCs: volatile organic compounds.

Emission-based certification systems for interior finish materials are divided into grade certification or suitability determination depending on whether emission amounts exceed certain criteria. Some countries’ standard program sets LCA standards for environmental impact across life cycle encompassing pollutant emissions and production, distribution, recycling, and disposal of interior finish materials such as Green Guard in the USA, Eco-Labeling program in South Korea, etc.

The VOCs are a significant class of indoor air pollutants, with indoor attentions generally higher than outdoors. Furthermore, formaldehyde is a priority VOC because of its frequent occurrence in indoor air and the serious health outcomes resulting from exposure [ 19 ]. Recently, the attentiveness of health risks linked with hazardous indoor air pollutants has activated a growing public health concern. Moreover, the emissions feature of building materials has been widely reported [ 95 ]. Böhm et al. (2012) studied formaldehyde emission (FE) monitoring from a variety of solid wood, plywood, block-board, and flooring products manufactured, which are used for building and furnishing materials [ 96 ]. They reported the differences in the FE values for various wood products. Based on the results, in the first week after manufacturing, the FE was high; however, the decrease in FE was noticeable at the two-week measurement for all of the materials, especially for the painted block-boards [ 96 ].

Numerous large-scale studies have also been directed in existing homes to quantify contaminant attentions. In some cases, information was simultaneously collected about potential contaminant sources. Based on researches, wet building products such as paints and adhesives contributed more significantly to VOC levels measured indoors [ 97 , 98 ]. Chuck and Derrick (1998) reviewed the VOC emission from polymeric materials used in buildings [ 99 ]. The study highlighted that polymeric materials such as vinyl floorings, carpets and underlays, adhesives, wall-covering materials, caulks, sealants, thermal insulating materials, paints, coatings and varnishes, and waterproofing membranes and bituminous emulsions are important sources of VOC emissions in buildings [ 99 ].

Kim et al. (2006) evaluated the VOC emissions from building finishing materials using a small chamber and VOC analyzer [ 58 ]. The research indicated that emissions of VOCs from wood-based composites could adversely affect indoor air quality. They endorsed the desiccator and chamber method for VOC analysis as a good alternative to the traditional chamber method for determining VOC emission levels from building products. Lee et al. (2012) focused on finishing material management systems for indoor air quality of apartment buildings and aimed to carry out research on a system for the selection of apartment house finish materials based on IAQ performance evaluation [ 100 ]. The result revealed that it is very important to control and evaluate the pollutant generation through the selected finish materials in buildings for preventing IAQ deterioration. Ayrilmis et al. (2016) tried to investigate the formaldehyde emission and total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs) emitted from the laminated veneer lumber (LVL) produced as building materials with the different-grade Urea formaldehyde (UF) resins that were modified with different amounts of the micro-fibrillated cellulose (MFC) using a thermal extractor [ 101 ]. They encountered the highest VOC emitted from the LVLs that were found to be toluene, followed by xylene, benzene, and ethyl-benzene, respectively. The TVOC from the LVLs considerably decreased with increasing MFC content, and usage of MFC in the UF resin was highlighted as an environmentally friendly solution for reducing the TVOC from the wood-based panels.

In terms of green or biocomposite materials, Lee et al. (2008) investigated biocomposites’ formaldehyde and TVOC emission [ 24 ]. Based on the result, the TVOC emission level is very low in all of the biocomposite samples except the formaldehyde and TVOC emission level of the bio-composites with the attached veneer. Cheng et al. (2015) compared conventional and green building materials in term of VOC and carbonyl emissions [ 63 ]. The research result showed that GBMs had lower emissions than conventional building materials, especially for wooden flooring and gypsum board.

Therefore, building materials need to be evaluated with respect to their human health impacts and VOC emissions. Based on the above literature review of previous studies in terms of outdoor and indoor impacts form non-structural building materials, this study hypothesized that biocomposite samples as GBMs have the potential for reducing human health impacts and VOC emission.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. materials: constituents and preparation.

This study considered hybrid kenaf with oil palm fibers (OPFs) in terms of reinforcement for target and goal biocomposite. The glass, kenaf, and oil palm fiber mats were obtained from Innovative Pultrusion Sdn Bhd Company, Malaysia. Moreover, the polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), and polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) granules were obtained from Goodfellow Cambridge Ltd. company, England, UK. Table 4 shows the various properties among PHB and two other polymers, PP and PE, based on the Goodfellow website information [ 102 ]. Table 4 compares significant characters and shows some similarity in physical and mechanical properties of PHB, PP, and PE.

The Goodfellow Cambridge Ltd. company’s information about properties of PHB, PP, and PE.

Composite manufacturing methods vary based on composite form, the fiber type, and the matrix type. Additionally, manufacturing method and volume fraction greatly affect biocomposite behavior. Heat and pressure are usually applied for manufacturing composites. In this study, based on the compression molding and laminate method, the biocomposites were made from polymer films and kenaf and OPF fabric. Preparation of the kenaf–OPF hybrid PHB biocomposite plate required two steps, PHB film and NF preparation. Previous research has developed various specific biocomposites in terms of mechanical properties, which determined the best layer arrangement for hybrid biocomposites [ 103 ]. The tensile and flexural test of woven kenaf bast fibre/oil palm empty fruit bunches (KBFw/EFB) hybrid reinforced PHB biocomposite with 11 layers revealed that this sample has the capability to replace with some wood and woody production as non-structural building materials. Figure 3 shows the sample layout of hybrid biocomposite with 11 layer laminate (three layers kenaf mat, two layers OPF mat, and six layers PHB film). The sample arrangement has variety in reinforcement and matrix percent. In this study, based on mechanical properties of biocomposite; the percentage of NFs/biopolymer is around (33%/67%), and the percentage of kenaf/OPF is around (33%/67%). For the preparation of GFPP and GFPE, the percentages of fiber and polymer are the same.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-17-02589-g003.jpg

Sample arrangement of kenaf/OPF (oil palm fiber) hybrid PHB biocomposite.

3.2. Methods

The methodology framework of this research is divided into two parts: first SimaPro software modeling with the ReCiPe method for evaluation of human health impacts based on LCA methodology, and secondly, small chamber test (ASTM-D5116) for VOC investigation.

3.2.1. Outdoor Impact Assessment to Human Health with SimaPro Software

LCA is a complex and expensive methodology. The evolution of LCA software leads to resolving the complexity of this method in material science. SimaPro is an LCA software that was used to quantify the total amount of human health impact in this part of the study. It is very important to recognize and simplify the complex reality of materials production during life cycle analysis. SimaPro software has the capability to quantify and compare inflows of embodied materials and outflows of emissions from materials on a life cycle perspective. The most important assumptions and limitations for this part of the methodology include:

  • ❖ The functional unit is an important issue in product comparisons, which should be defined for ensuring a common basis in terms of comparing two products. In this study, the functional and declared unit is set to be one kilogram of output.
  • ❖ The initial system boundary is a helpful way to draw and determine a diagram and boundary for products. Therefore, the system boundary applied in software modeling focuses on ranges from cradle to gate.

Definitely, biocomposite is a biodegradable material that needs less energy for recycling during the end-of-life, compared with petroleum-based composite. In this case, the impacts regarding installation and maintenance are negligible and the use phase and end-of-life are not included in the system boundary. Therefore, the system boundary for this research is focused on cradle to gate. Cradle-to-gate is a valuation of a restricted material life cycle from resource extraction (cradle) to the factory gate, before it is transported to the customer. The use phase and disposal phase of the product are omitted in this case.

In addition, the life cycle inventory (LCI) for the acquisition of raw materials information is achieved from Eco-invent, Industry data, and U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database (USLCI) libraries [ 104 , 105 , 106 ]. Totally, SimaPro contains a number of impact assessment methods, which are used to calculate impact assessment results. In this research, the ReCiPe method was considered for LCIA form SimaPro methods’ library, that it was created by Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), institute of the Faculty of Science of Leiden University (CML), PRé Consultants, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, and CE Delft [ 85 ]. ReCiPe is the most recent and harmonized indicator approach available in LCIA. In ReCiPe, the user can choose midpoint indicators or endpoint indicators for interpreting for this quantitative list of emissions [ 107 ]. Under the endpoint approach, total impacts are grouped into general issues of concern such as human health, natural environment, and resources [ 108 , 109 ].

3.2.2. Indoor Impact Assessment to Human Health with Small Chamber Test

This part of the study focused on concluding the emissions of organic compounds from indoor materials with small-scale environmental test chambers. The evaluation of indoor air pollution from bio-based and petroleum-based composite as non-structural building materials is measured in conformity with the ASTM designation: D5116-10 [ 110 ]. Experimentally, a small chamber technique is available for evaluating organic emissions from indoor materials in the building. A facility considered and functioned to control organic emission rates from building materials includes test chambers, clean-air generation system, monitoring and control systems, sample collection and analysis equipment, and standards generation and calibration systems. Figure 4 is a schematic showing an example system with two test chambers. The clean air–humidity control system has an air providing part, a humidifier, and a ventilation system to cleanse the air.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-17-02589-g004.jpg

Small chamber test facility schematic.

The sample size of building materials can range from a few liters to a few cubic meters. Moreover, the basic experimental design for small chamber tests should include and test the effects of various parameters on the emission characteristics of the materials. Six variables are generally considered to be critical parameters: temperature [T], humidity [H], air exchange rate [N], product loading [L], time [t], and air velocity [v]. Before starting the chamber test, it should be washed with distilled water and heated at 260 °C to eliminate any pollutants from the chamber. Table 5 shows the test conditions in the 20 L small chamber method. Additionally, two stainless flame seal packets are used during the test, in which every sealed box just allows emission from one surface of every sample, and not from the edges [ 111 ].

Test conditions in the 20 L small chamber method.

The samples are collected after 1, 3, 5, and 7 days using Tenax-TA tubes from the air outlet the bake-out chamber. The total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs) concentrations were analyzed by gas chromatography with a mass spectrum (GC-MS) ( Figure 5 ). It is an analytical method that combines the features of gas chromatography and mass spectrometry to identify different substances within a test sample [ 112 ]. The TVOC value is not only the amount of the volatile organic compounds distinguished in an analysis. This value of a sample is determined by the integration of the chromatographic peak area between C6–C16 with a 100 ng total integrated area toluene peak comparison calculated.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-17-02589-g005.jpg

Gas chromatography–mass spectrum (GC-MS) instrument.

4. Results and Discussions

4.1. results and discussion for outdoor human health impacts.

The objective of this part of the research focused on terms of human health from comparing LCIA of bio-based with petroleum-based composites. The SimaPro outcome for LCIA encompasses two levels of impact categories: midpoint and endpoint level. The greatest of midpoint impact groups and indicators are reproduced midpoint indicators by damage factors. Damage assessment converts midpoint indicators into three endpoint categories: ecosystem, human health, and resources with different units. Furthermore, there are three different indicators (damage assessment, normalization, and weighting) in endpoint level outcomes of impacts assessment through SimaPro software with the ReCiPe method.

Damage assessment was appended to make use of “endpoint methods”, such as Eco-indicator 99 and the EPS2000. Damage assessment aims to mix a number of impact category indicators into a damage category. The damage category is called the area of protection (AoP) and includes ecosystems, resources, and human health. In ReCiPe, the AoP of human health has been represented by the endpoint category “damage to human health”, which combines mortality and morbidity. The AoP of the natural environment was represented by the loss of species, and the increased set of future extractions represented the AoP of natural resources.

Figure 6 shows the damage assessment indicator result from the endpoint characterization factors used in the ReCiPe method. They are displayed and plotted on a 100% scale. The damage category is called an area of protection, which is including ecosystem, resources, and human health, with a different unit. The unit of damage to human health is named DALYs, which means (disability-adjusted life years). In fact, damage to human health expressed as the quantity of years of life lost and the quantity of years lived disabled.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-17-02589-g006.jpg

Damage assessment indicator.

Therefore, these endpoint outcomes can assist in extending discussion in terms of human health impact. The concept of DALYs has proven to be a useful metric in the assessment of human health damage in LCA [ 113 ]. Based on Figure 7 , the amount of damage to human health declined on the substitution of bio-based composite for petroleum-based composite (GFPP, and GFPE) from 100% to 44%.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-17-02589-g007.jpg

Damage assessment indicator to human health.

Further impact assessment indicators from damage oriented scores are the normalization and weighting that simplify the complex interpretation of the results in midpoint level and permanently considered them on the basis of the endpoint characterization. Normalization is a method to demonstrate at what level an impact category contributes to the overall environmental and human health problems. Normalization also solves the incompatibility of units. It shows to what extent an impact category indicator consequence has a quite high or low value compared to a reference. The normalization provides comprehensible results for comparing the impact of two products with the same unit. During the procedure of normalization, when emissions per year are used, the exact unit of a normalized value is a year.

Based on normalization results ( Figure 8 ), the impact category on human health declined noticeably from 0.0015 to 0.00065 on substitution of petroleum-based composite (GFPP and GFPE) with fully biocomposite materials.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-17-02589-g008.jpg

Normalization indicator.

Weighting is the greatest provocative and tough step in life cycle impact assessment, particularly for midpoint approaches, which is used quite comprehensively for internal decision-making. The value of weighting is mPt. One point is equivalent to 1/1000 of average Europeans’ environmental impact in one year, and 1 mPt (mili point) is equal 1/1000 Pt. Totally, weighting presents LCA results as a single score, which allows you to easily compare the human health impact of two different products.

Figure 9 shows the weighting indicator, which determines the significant effect of this research strategy for human health gauge. The impacts on human health reduce from 600 to 270 mPt due to the substitution of petroleum-based composite with biocomposite. Therefore, the SimaPro analysis shows that the total impact on human health declined around half with the substitution of biocomposite to petroleum-based composite (GFPP and GFPE).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-17-02589-g009.jpg

Weighting indicator.

4.2. Result and Discussion from the Small Chamber Test for Indoor Human Health Impacts

The 20 L chamber test method is commonly used for the assessment of TVOCs and formaldehyde emissions based on ASTM standards. The results of this process emphasized that small chamber evaluations are used to determine source emission rates for comparison between petroleum-based composite with biocomposites. These rates are then used in IAQ models to predict the indoor concentration of the compounds emitted from the tested samples.

The gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) instrument separates chemical mixtures (the GC component) and identifies the components at a molecular level (the MS component). It is one of the most accurate tools for analyzing environmental samples. The GC works on the principle that a mixture will separate into individual substances when heated. The heated gases are carried through a column with an inert gas. As the separated substances emerge from the column opening, they flow into the MS. Mass spectrometry identifies compounds by the mass of the analyzed molecule.

Automated Mass Deconvolution and Identification System (AMDIS) software is supplied by the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) with the library package. The software de-convolutes the spectra of overlapping chromatographic peaks and pulls out “clean target spectra” from overlapping peaks. The TVOC value of a sample is determined by the integration of the chromatographic peak area between C6–C16.

Figure 10 shows the TVOCs emissions, which were detected 1, 3, 5, and 7 days after the preparation of the sample. According to these results, the TVOCs emissions of all of the samples declined during the seven days of monitoring. Biocomposite has lower emission of TVOCs in compare to other materials. Moreover, the difference in TVOC emission between biocomposite and petroleum-based composite was very high. The amount of TVOCs of biocomposite monitor from 0.78 (mg/m 2 h) on the first day and gradually decreased until 0.11 (mg/m 2 h) in seven days. However, the TVOCs emission of GFPP was higher than that of GFPE; the amount of VOCs from both sharply decreased during the seven days of monitoring. The higher rate TVOCs emissions belonged to GFPP on the first day (around 4.3 (mg/m 2 h)), and its sharply declined around 50% for seven days to 2.4 (mg/m 2 h).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-17-02589-g010.jpg

Total volatile organic compound (TVOC) emission factor (mg/m 2 h) of different samples during seven days of monitoring.

According to the literature review about various standards related to TVOCs, there is a difference between the generic standard of chamber properties during the test and rating for evaluation the rate of TVOC emissions for building products. For example, the European test methods are based on ISO 16000 [ 110 ] such as AgBB (Germany) [ 114 ] and AFSSET (France) [ 115 ], and in the U.S., Californian CHPS specification [ 116 ], also known as Section 01350, which is based on ASTM-D5116 [ 117 ]. Therefore, there is a different rate of consideration as limited values for comparison of emission rates. The total VOC emission limitation and the acceptable one for the building is different: AFSSET and AgBB: 1250 (μg/m 2 h) and CHPS: around 1000 (μg/m 2 h). Each milligram/liter (mg/m 2 h) equals 1000 microgram/liter (μg/m 2 h).

Based on Figure 10 , the TVOC emission rate in seven days equals 2400 μg/m 2 h for GFPP, 2100 μg/m 2 h for GFPE, and 110 μg/m 2 h for biocomposite. The TVOC emissions of both petroleum composites (GFPP and GFPE) was higher than the acceptable rate of emissions based on AFSSET, AgBB, and CHPS standard. Therefore, the egregious difference of TVOCs emissions between biocomposite and petroleum composites, with acceptable standards rate, could highlight the biocomposite’s function in terms of indoor air quality.

5. Conclusions

The impact of building materials on human health is unavoidable. However, the movement of conventional building materials to green materials tried to reduce the total impacts on human health in indoor and outdoor. Green building materials (GBMs) with non-toxic, natural, and organic compounds have the potential to reduce indoor air quality (IAQ) deterioration and total impacts on human health. Green composite or biocomposite as GBMs are bio-based, healthy, and recyclable, which progress the total quality of life. By using small chamber test (ASTM-D5116), for VOCs investigation, and SimaPro software modeling with ReCiPe method, for evaluating human health impacts based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, this study tried to develop a model of fully hybrid bio-based biocomposite as non-structural GBMs and compared it with fully petroleum-based composite in term of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions and human health impacts. The results recommend substituting the fully petroleum-based composite with the fully hybrid bio-based biocomposite, which can significantly decline the rate of impacts on human health in terms of indoor and outdoor.

Based on the results, the green or biocomposite as GBMs with non-toxic, natural, and organic compounds considerably demoted indoor air quality (IAQ) deterioration and total impacts on human health, while this was not observed from petroleum-based composite. In terms of outdoor impacts on human health, the result transfigured the life cycle inventory of these composites with SimaPro software to create a certain level of damage with a single score. The results revealed that the total outdoor impacts on human health decrease around one third with substitution of biocomposites for petroleum-based composites based on LCIA. In terms of indoor impacts on human health, the result developed based on TVOC emissions from petroleum-based composites and biocomposite, with a 20 L chamber test method (ASTM-D5116). The obtained result exposed that the total indoor impacts of TVOCs on human health incredibly decline with the substitution of biocomposites for petroleum-based composites. The TVOC emission rate from biocomposites is acceptable according to a different standard (such as AgBB, AFSSET, and CHPS), but this is not true for petroleum-based composites.

This study provides significant coordination between the development of biocomposite principles as GBMs and the level of product development in terms of VOCs. Additionally, this study affords an essential orientation and the first phase for future investigation to discuss the role of different biocomposites in reducing environmental and human health impacts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.M.K. and D.Š.; data curation, R.R., R.M.Z., A.M., and M.I.; formal analysis, S.M.K., R.R., and D.Š.; funding acquisition, D.Š. and M.I.; investigation, R.M.Z., A.M., and M.I.; project administration, R.R.; resources, R.R., R.M.Z., and D.Š.; software, A.M.; supervision, S.M.K.; validation, A.M.; visualization, M.I.; writing—original draft, S.M.K.; writing—review and editing, R.M.Z. and A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research was funded by a grant from Malaysia’s Ministry of Higher Education, grant no. 04E28, the Staff of Construction Research Center (CRC), the Faculty of civil engineering, and Research Management Center (RMC) of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Rammed earth, as a sustainable and structurally safe green building: a housing solution in the era of global warming and climate change

  • Original Paper
  • Published: 30 October 2019
  • Volume 21 , pages 119–136, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

  • Binod Khadka   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5974-929X 1 , 2 , 3  

1685 Accesses

14 Citations

Explore all metrics

Today with rapidly increasing population and their housing demands, the whole world has been victimized by critical consequences of global warming and climate change. From simple to complex construction, materials being used not only consume massive energy and resources during their life cycle but also deteriorate the environment releasing an enormous amount of dust, solid waste, and greenhouse gases. With an intention to provide immediate solution in the form of sustainable alternative materials, rammed earth is chosen in this study where, natural sub-soil is used as primary constituent, i.e. clay (15–25%), sand (50–60%), gravel (15–20%) with/without small percentage of stabilizer like cement (3–5%), and minimum water (8–12%), and finally tamping the mix in required formwork using simple methods/tools, have clearly justified this construction as low consumer of resources and energy compared to other conventional building materials like brick and cement. This paper outlines environmental impacts of building construction and justifies suitability of rammed earth as an ideal sustainable housing both in terms of environmental and structural stability, based on results obtained from lab tests (compressive strength: 1.5–6.5 MPa, water resistivity, optimum water content) of 100 mm stabilized and un-stabilized cube samples (with variation in moisture content, soil and stabilizer types), site investigation for around 6 years, constructing and demonstrating two small-scaled stabilized and un-stabilized rammed earth houses, discussion with local people, builders and masons. Comparatively, cement-stabilized (5% cement) samples had better overall results than un-stabilized and dung-stabilized samples. In addition, cost comparison showed that 360-mm-thick rammed earth wall was 10–15% cheaper than 230-mm-thick brick wall. Similarly, further verifying and comparing the obtained findings with previous-detailed studies is one of the highlighting parts of this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

research paper on green building materials

Similar content being viewed by others

research paper on green building materials

Comparative compressive strength of stabilized and un-stabilized rammed earth

Binod Khadka & Manjip Shakya

research paper on green building materials

Natural and Recycled Stabilizers for Rammed Earth Material Optimization

research paper on green building materials

Recent Innovations in Stabilized Earthen Construction

Adam, E., & Agib, A. (2001). Compressed stabilised earth block manufacture in Sudan . France: Printed by Graphoprint for UNESCO.

Google Scholar  

Arezoumandi, M., Volz, J. S., Ortega, C. A., & Myers, J. J. (2013). Effect of total cementitious content on shear strength of high-volume fly ash concrete beams. Materials and Design, 46, 301–309.

Article   Google Scholar  

Australia Standard. (2002). Australian earth building handbook . Sydney: Google Scholar.

Bahar, R., Benazzoug, M., & Kenai, S. (2004). Performance of compacted cement-stabilised soil. Cement and Concrete Composites, 26 (7), 811–820.

Barbosa, N., Swamy, N., & Mattone, R. (2007). Potentialities of earth construction in Latin-America. In: International symposium on earthen structures , vol. 1, pp. 29–37.

Berge, B. (2001). Ecology of building materials: Beyond 2000. Discovery channel . Oxford: Architectural Press.

Berge, B. (2009). The ecology of building materials . Abingdon: Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

BS 5628:Part 1. (1992). Code of practice for use of masonry . United Kingdom: British Standards Institute.

Bureau I. (2009). Draft reference document on best available techniques in the cement, lime and magnesium oxide manufacturing industries . Seville: European IPPC Bureau.

Burroughs, S. (2008). Soil property criteria for rammed earth stabilization. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 20 (3), 264–273.

Cassell, R. (1993). A traditional research paper: Rammed earth construction, the compaction of successive layers of earth between forms to build a wall.

Dakwale, V. A., & Ralegaonkar, R. V. (2011). Review of carbon emission through buildings: Threats, causes and solution. International Journal of Low Carbon Technologies, 7 (2), 143–148.

Dixon, W. (2010). The impacts of construction and the built environment. Briefing notes . Letchworth Garden City: Willmott-Dixon Group.

Downton P (2013) Rammed earth.

Edwards, B. (2005). Rough guide to sustainability (2nd ed.). London: RIBA Enterprises Ltd.

Guettala, A., Abibsi, A., & Houari , H. (2006). Durability study of stabilized earth concrete under both laboratory and climatic conditions exposure. Construction and Building Materials, 20 (3), 119–127.

Guillaud, H. (2008). Characterization of earthen materials. Terra Literature Review, 2008, 21.

Hadjri, K., Osmani, M., Baiche, B., & Chifunda, C. (2007). (2007). Attitudes towards earth building for Zambian housing provision.

Hall, M., Najim, K., & Dehdezi, P. K. (2012). Soil stabilisation and earth construction: Materials, properties and techniques. In M. Hall (Ed.), Modern earth buildings (pp. 222–255). Oxford: Elsevier.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Houben, H., Rigassi, V., & Garnier, P. (1994). Compressed earth blocks: Production equipment (Technologies (CDI) No. 5) . Brussels: Centre Devt Industry (CDI).

Howieson, S. (2005). Housing and asthma . Routledge: Taylor & Francis.

IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis . Geneva: IPCC.

IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change . Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Kadoshin, S., Nishiyama, T., & Ito, T. (2000). The trend in current and near future energy consumption from a statistical perspective. Applied Energy, 67 (4), 407–417.

Kasotia, P. (2007). The health effects of global warming: Developing countries are the most vulnerable . UN Chronicle.

Kateregga, J. (1983). Improvement and use of earth construction products for low cost housing. Appropriate Building Materials For Low Cost Housing African Region, 1983, 23–60.

Kaveh, A., & Vazirinia, Y. (2019). Smart-home electrical energy scheduling system using multi-objective ant lion optimizer and evidential reasoning. Scientia Iranica .

Khadka, B., & Shakya, M. (2016). Comparative compressive strength of stabilized and un-stabilized rammed earth. Materials and Structures, 49 (9), 3945–3955.

Khanzadi, M., Kaveh, A., Moghaddam, M. R., & Pourbagheri, S. M. (2018). Optimization of building components with sustainability aspects in BIM environment. Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering . https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.12551 .

King, B. (1996). Buildings of earth and straw: Structural design for rammed earth and straw-bale architecture . New York: Ecological Design Press.

Kneifel, J. (2010). Life-cycle carbon and cost analysis of energy efficiency measures in new commercial buildings. Energy and buildings, 42 (3), 333–340.

Lal, A. K. (1995). Hand book of low cost housing . New Delhi: New Age International.

Maini, S. (2005). Earthen architecture for sustainable habitat and compressed stabilised earth block technology . Auroville: The Auroville Earth Institute, Auroville Building Center-India.

Middleton, G. F., & Lawrence, M. S. (1987). Bulletin 5 earth-wall construction (4th ed.). Australia: National Building Technology Centre.

Morton, T. (2007). Towards the development of contemporary Earth Construction in the UK: Drivers and benefits of Earth Masonry as a Sustainable Mainstream Construction Technique. In International Symposium on Earthen Structures, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore (Vol. 22, p. 24).

Morton, T. (2008). Earth masonry. Design and Construction Guidelines .

Ngowi, A. (1997). Improving the traditional earth construction: A case study of Botswana. Construction and Building Materials, 11 (1), 1–7.

NZS 4297. (1998). Engineering design of earth buildings . Wellington: Standard New Zealand.

Outlook, A. E. (2008). Energy information administration . Official Energy Statistics from the US Government. http://www.eia.doe.gov .

Pacheco-Torgal, F., & Jalali, S. (2012). Earth construction: Lessons from the past for future eco-efficient construction. Construction and Building Materials, 29, 512–519.

Pérez-Lombard, L., Ortiz, J., & Pout, C. (2008). A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy and Buildings, 40 (3), 394–398.

Prairie Village, K. (1998). Characterization of building-related construction and demolition debris in the United States. The US Environmental Protection Agency Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division Office of Solid Waste .

Price, L., Can, S. D. L. R. D., Sinton, J., Worrell, E., Nan, Z., Sathaye, J., et al. (2006). Sectoral trends in global energy use and greenhouse gas emissions . Berkeley: Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Raut, A. (2003). Brick Kilns in Kathmandu Valley: Current status, environmental impacts and future options. Himalayan Journal of Sciences, 1 (1), 59–61.

Reddy, V. B. (2007). Indian standard code of practice for manufacture and use of stabilised mud blocks for masonry.

Roodman, D. M., Lenssen, N. K., & Peterson, J. A. (1995). A building revolution: How ecology and health concerns are transforming construction . Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.

Sethna, Z. (2008). A sustainability approach to standards for rammed earth construction in Bhutan . Cambridge: University of Cambridge, Fourth-year undergraduate project.

Stajanča, M., & Eštoková, A. (2012). Environmental impacts of cement production.

UN Green Building Council. (2009). Green building by the numbers . Washington, DC: UN Green Building Council.

United Nations (2017). World Population 2017 (P. D. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Trans.). United Nations.

USGS. (2005). US geological survey: Estimated use of water in the United States in 2000 . Reston: US Geological Service.

Venkatarama Reddy, B. (2009). Sustainable materials for low carbon buildings. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, 4 (3), 175–181.

Vroomen, R. R. (2007). Gypsum stabilised earth: Research on the properties of cast Gypsum - stabilised earth and its suitability for low cost housing construction in developing countries . Final thesis for Msc Architecture, Building and Planning, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands.

Walker, P., Keable, R., Martin, J., & Maniatidis, V. (2005). Rammed earth: Design and construction guidelines.

Zami, M. S., & Lee, A. (2009). Use of stabilised earth in the construction of low cost sustainable housing in Africa—an energy solution in the era of climate change. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 3 (2), 51–65.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wants to thank all the team members (B.E. Civil batch 2010, Khwopa Engineering College) who participated in model preparation of rammed earth house and the respective faculties. Similarly, the author also wanted to thank Dr. Manjip Shakya and Santosh Shrestha for their valuable suggestions. The suitable working environment provided by Khwopa Engineering College and Rammed Earth Solution Pvt. ltd. is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Disaster Mitigation for Structures, College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

Binod Khadka

State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China

Department of Civil Engineering, Khwopa Engineering College, Bhaktapur, Nepal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Binod Khadka .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The corresponding author confirms that there are no conflicts of interest associated with this publication.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Khadka, B. Rammed earth, as a sustainable and structurally safe green building: a housing solution in the era of global warming and climate change. Asian J Civ Eng 21 , 119–136 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-019-00202-5

Download citation

Received : 25 June 2019

Accepted : 07 October 2019

Published : 30 October 2019

Issue Date : February 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-019-00202-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Rammed earth construction
  • Building materials
  • Green building
  • Global warming
  • Sustainability
  • Housing demand
  • Stabilization
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

Accessibility Links

  • Skip to content
  • Skip to search IOPscience
  • Skip to Journals list
  • Accessibility help
  • Accessibility Help

Click here to close this panel.

Purpose-led Publishing is a coalition of three not-for-profit publishers in the field of physical sciences: AIP Publishing, the American Physical Society and IOP Publishing.

Together, as publishers that will always put purpose above profit, we have defined a set of industry standards that underpin high-quality, ethical scholarly communications.

We are proudly declaring that science is our only shareholder.

Use of sustainable green materials in construction of green buildings for sustainable development

Prutha Patel 1 and Anant Patel 1

Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science , Volume 785 , International Conference on Innovative Research on Renewable Energy Technologies 25-27 February 2021, Malda, West Bengal, India Citation Prutha Patel and Anant Patel 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 785 012009 DOI 10.1088/1755-1315/785/1/012009

Article metrics

432 Total downloads

Share this article

Author e-mails.

[email protected]

Author affiliations

1 Civil Engineering Department, Institute of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmedabad-382481, Gujarat, India.

Buy this article in print

Sustainability in building construction is now major priority as it is having various advantages. The global trend is moving towards the sustainability and hence sustainable building construction has prime importance in the construction industry. Due to huge urbanization activities lot of environmental issues are originating. Building construction using sustainable materials will lead to reduction in the pollution and also improve the existing situation of environmental problems. This paper discusses the use of recycled design products in the construction industry. Affordable sustainable housing projects made from locally available construction materials are in high demand. It safeguards the natural ecosystem, economy, and energy. As a result, the report considers unique products that could fulfil the minimum requirements for sustainable building construction. The primary goal of this research is to do a comparative review to determine the viability of using recycled building materials instead of conventional building materials.

Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence . Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.

  • Open access
  • Published: 29 May 2019

Green building literacy: a framework for advancing green building education

  • Laura B. Cole   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5730-1881 1  

International Journal of STEM Education volume  6 , Article number:  18 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

29k Accesses

35 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Despite the increasing square footage of green buildings worldwide, green building expertise remains largely in the domain of building industry professionals. However, the performance of and advocacy for green buildings would benefit from a green building literate general public. Green building education is an expanding frontier for STEM education and can create opportunities to integrate science and environmental literacies into the study of everyday environments. Few resources exist, however, to help STEM educators incorporate green building themes into the science classroom. The work here developed educational tools for connecting green buildings and science education through a multi-step process. An interdisciplinary literature review yielded a series of frameworks that were improved through two focus groups with science and environmental educators and built environment professionals.

The result of this process is a toolbox of conceptual frameworks for educators interested in using a systems-based approach to teach about green buildings as sites for complex interactions between human activity and Earth systems. The work here first leverages the broad definition of environmental literacy (knowledge, skills, affect, and behavior) to advance a working definition for “green building literacy.” Next, major domains of green building knowledge are developed and linked to the Next Generation Science Standards.

Conclusions

Green building literacy has been an ill-defined term and green building themes have not been rigorously connected to science and environmental education. The work here provides a foundation for promoting green building literacy through K-12 STEM education. The educational tools developed through this process can be used as a starting point for lesson planning to catalyze green building education in a variety of formal and informal settings.

Introduction

The overarching goals of building “green” are to reduce the social and environmental impacts of the built environment while improving the quality of life for occupants within buildings. In the USA, residential and commercial buildings consume 40% of total energy consumption and 75% of all electricity produced (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012 ). The average American family uses 300 gal of water a day, where 70% of that water use occurs indoors (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. ). The contemporary green building movement promotes buildings that lessen these environmental impacts through better building construction (e.g., less construction waste), building operation and maintenance (e.g., water and energy conservation and better indoor air quality), and lifecycle considerations (e.g., recycling and deconstruction at the end of a building’s life) (International Living Future Institute, n.d. ; USGBC, n.d. ). However, the problem remains that few people outside the building industry understand the myriad benefits of building green (Cole, 2013 ).

Public green building education matters for a variety of reasons. To begin, people are life-long building consumers and occupants within buildings can be crucial agents of change for resource conservation measures such as energy efficiency and material recycling (e.g., Gill, Tierney, Pegg, & Allan, 2010 ; Wu, DiGiacomo, Lenkic, Wong, & Kingstone, 2016 ). A building’s design and resultant ecological performance may depend on occupant behaviors such as minimizing space heaters under the desk, turning off lights, and knowing when to close or open a window. Additionally, for residential structures, many people will at some point in their lives own and maintain, or rent and seek to improve, their own homes. Adults will increasingly need to engage with tax incentives for green home features and learn how to do home renovations or consult professionals for upgrades like better insulation, water efficient fixtures, or solar panel installation. Gaining expertise in green building strategies is therefore comparable to other basic skills in the home economy such as cooking nutritious meals or balancing finances. Finally, energy and atmosphere issues dominate the U.S. Labor Industry’s working definition of a green workforce (SEED Center, n.d. ). Green buildings can make significant contributions to solving energy and atmosphere challenges and will require an increasingly knowledgeable workforce to design, build, and maintain. These foundations for green building literacy can begin in the K-12 classroom.

Green building literacy (GBL) is the term used here to describe the hoped-for outcome of green building education [which falls within the larger movement for public “built environment education” (e.g., Portillo & Rey-Barreau, 1995 )]. To craft green building education programs, a framework is needed to understand prospects for GBL. The conceptual framework for GBL presented below builds off the four core themes integrated into frameworks for environmental literacy over time. Despite much variation in terminology, these four dimensions are knowledge, skills, affect, and behavior (terms used in the McBride, Brewer, Berkowitz, & Borrie, 2013 overview of environmental literacy frameworks). To date, little effort has been made to stitch together these domains with the topic of green building design. The current author presented the “ Major features of green building literacy ” in previous reporting as a theoretical background for empirical work in green schools (Cole, 2015 ). This work utilized the Marcinkowski ( 2010 ) matrix for “Major Features of Environmental Literacy,” a framework chosen for its clear distillation of themes and for its practical emphasis on identifying issues and solving problems. Previous publications on GBL, however, have not clearly identified the multiple dimensions of GBL from a theoretical point of view or aligned outcomes to STEM education. Doing so can inform a range of practices (from curriculum to building design) for various age groups given the broad nature of the foundational categories for environmental literacy presented by McBride et al. ( 2013 ).

Previous work on GBL was additionally conducted through a research project entitled “Green Building Technology Education,” funded by the National Science Council in Taiwan, which focused on green building education at the college level (Shiao, Lin, & Sung, 2013 ). Scholars in this group used the Roth ( 1992 ) work on environmental literacy to build curriculum and develop an evaluation tool for GBL (Jan, Lin, Shiao, Wei, Huang, & Sung, 2012 ). Their study involved a curricular intervention in an undergraduate general education course with pre- and post-course surveys measuring GBL, where they found significant increases in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors from pre- to post-course (Shiao et al., 2013 ). They also identified a gap between positive attitudes and actual behaviors related to green buildings, which they attributed to the lack of green building skills (Jan et al., 2012 ). The work here expands the scholarship from Taiwan in several key ways. First, the “ Major features of green building literacy ” framework presented here offers a broader spectrum of pedagogical approaches to green building education compared to work by Shiao et al. ( 2013 ). The framework presented here incorporates multiple dimensions of green building knowledge (factual, conceptual, and procedural), where previous work has not considered various knowledge domains (i.e., those inspired by Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956 ) and how these different kinds of knowledge relate to green building education. Second, this paper outlines a larger array of green building learning content. The scholarship in Taiwan was based on the Taiwan Green Building Label rating system (Tawain Green Building Label, n.d. ), which was developed specifically for tropical climates. This paper integrates international green building rating systems to offer 14 green building knowledge categories. This paper additionally provides educators with an integrative framework that places green buildings within infrastructural, ecological, and social contexts in alignment with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (NGSS Lead States, 2013 ) (Additional file 1 ). In doing so, the hope is that educators can increasingly teach about green buildings as dynamically interconnected with surrounding social and physical contexts while meeting stringent standards for science education. Finally, work in Taiwan was crafted specifically for the green building education of college students. The work here seeks to inform K-12 educators and curriculum developers who aspire to increase GBL for youth.

Improving the definition of GBL has implications for theories of teaching and learning. First, crafting a framework for GBL promotes exciting future directions for educators interested in experiential and place-based education (Barr, Dunbar, & Schiller, 2012 ). Learners can, of course, engage with green buildings themes by reading and watching educational media. However, green building knowledge can also be gained through hands-on lessons in the home, school building, public buildings, and beyond in community infrastructure (Cole, McPhearson, Herzog, & Kudryavtsev, 2017 ). As Sobel ( 2004 ) defines it, place-based education is “the process of using the local community and environment as a starting point to teach concepts in language arts, mathematics, social studies, science and other subjects across the curriculum” (p. 6). The study of buildings within infrastructure and ecology aligns well with Sobel’s vision of treating the surrounding community as an extension of the classroom and complement to textbook learning (Sobel, 2004 ).

The sections to follow address each the practical and theoretical aspects of GBL. First, GBL is theoretically positioned within the larger discourses of environmental literacy and science literacy. Second, the “ Major features of green building literacy ” are presented as a set of frameworks that can be used by educators and curriculum developers to integrate green building themes into STEM education.

Theorizing green building literacy

While green building themes can be viewed through numerous disciplinary lenses, the current work examines green building design as nested within the broader topics of environmental literacy and science literacy. A green building literate citizen will benefit from foundational knowledge from environmental/sustainability education and science education to understand both the what and why of green building design and ultimately how to engage in transformative green buildings practices.

Just as the term “environmental literacy” has been the subject of much debate (e.g., McBride et al., 2013 ), the term “science literacy” has been similarly elusive to define (e.g., DeBoer, 2000 ; Roberts, 2007 ). Both types of literacy, however, share the challenge of blurred boundaries between the physical sciences and socio-cultural themes. Environmental literacy is conceptualized as a combination of social and ecological forces, or an overlap of ecological literacy with civics literacy (Berkowitz, Ford, & Brewer, 2005 ; McBride et al., 2013 ), that attempts to thread together the complex relationships between human activity and ecosystem health. Likewise, for science literacy, the needs to place science within applied contexts necessitates some level of systems thinking that engages disciplines outside the physical sciences, which stands in contrast to a formulation of science literacy that stays “within science” (a distinction well-articulated by the Roberts, 2007 notion of Visions I and II for science/scientific literacy). Science standards for K-12 education, such as the NGSS, additionally include guidelines for teaching at the intersections of Earth systems and human activity (NGSS Lead States, 2013 ). Architectural environments, commonly infused with scientific advancements, are potent and very tangible manifestations of how humans interface with ecology. Green building design is thus uniquely positioned at the intersection of a variety of socio-cultural, technological, and ecological themes. However, educators need not expand to dimensions beyond science to engage in green building education. Green building design is fundamentally based on scientific concepts and can be viewed through a purely scientific lens. While the topic of green buildings is malleable to a variety of conceptualizations within the broader ideas of science literacy and environmental literacy, the frameworks introduced here were created with a mind toward the potential for interdisciplinarity.

Adding the notion of green building literacy (GBL) to the crowded field of “literacies” is not an exercise to take lightly. A more in-depth justification for why literacy is the appropriate terminology for advancing green building education is warranted. Stables and Bishop ( 2001 ) warn that “the term ‘literacy’ has been degraded as a result of its indiscriminate application” (p. 90). They argue that the application of the term to a variety of domains (e.g., environmental, technological, and computer literacies) has not been sufficiently grounded in the linguistic and literary origins of the notion of “literacy.” In their argument for a “strong conception of environmental literacy,” they advocate for an expansive conceptualization of the term “environmental literacy,” where literacy is not restricted to textual literacy, but understood as a broader engagement with the biophysical environment. Their work draws on work by de Saussure ( 1966 ) on semiology, the study of both linguistic and non-linguistic communication via the use of “signs” that are open to a variety of interpretations. Stables and Bishop ( 2001 ) argue for an understanding of environmental literacy as a semiotic engagement with our surrounding environment where the biophysical environment can be thought of a text that we both “read” (understand) and “write” (act on). In this view, the environment is not only an ecological reality but also open to a variety of scientific, historical, and esthetic interpretations (Stables & Bishop, 2001 , p. 93). McBride et al. ( 2013 ) also addressed the need to understand the term “literacy” beyond textual literacy by stating that “… expectations for a literate citizenry have been extended to include the ability to understand, make informed decisions, and act with respect to complex topics and issues facing society today” (McBride et al., 2013 , p. 2).

Conceptualizations of GBL can meet the Stables and Bishop ( 2001 ) criteria of being “strong.” Like the biophysical environment, buildings too can be read and written. This is a particularly interesting question in school buildings where the building can act as one stream of messaging among many others (Cole, 2018 ; Higgs & McMillan, 2006 ; Shapiro, 2015 ). Aligning with Stables and Bishop’s ( 2001 ) conceptualization, buildings may fit the same role as the biophysical environment, offering a palette of signs open to interpretation by building occupants and therefore providing a unique medium for environmental education. Buildings, perhaps even more than natural settings, are open to a multitude of interpretations with diverse layers—socio-cultural, biophysical, technical, historic, etc.—to comprehend. The term “green building literacy,” as used here, thus shares the strong conception of environmental literacy envisioned by Stables and Bishop ( 2001 ) as a fluid outcome rooted in time and context.

Like textual literacy and the Stables ( 1998 ) model for environmental literacy, GBL can also be understood as variously functional, cultural, and critical. The framework for GBL presented here lays the groundwork for functional GBL (the basic ability to “read” a green building) by outlining the diverse domains of green building knowledge. These knowledge domains are not simply about buildings as objects, however; the framework conceives green buildings as cultural artifacts that intersect with themes of economy, social justice, and esthetics. Green building education, therefore, can integrate cultural GBL (understanding the significance of green building practices) by encouraging learners to decode the kinds of socio-cultural messages that buildings impart. Better yet, green building education can foster critical GBL, where learners critically engage with green buildings to question the cultural, social, and political forces that both shape—and are shaped by—buildings. Stables ( 1998 ) argues that functional and cultural literacy are required for critical literacy, and effective environmental action requires critical environmental literacy. This may be true in the arena of green building design, where a basic understanding of green buildings is the foundation for active and effective participation in the green building movement.

Methods: green building literacy framework development

To develop this provisional framework for green building literacy (GBL), the guiding question was: what are the core qualities of a green building literate citizen ? This study used a simplified and qualitative Delphi technique (e.g., Murry & Hammons, 1995 ) to create, present, and revise the frameworks presented here. First, an interdisciplinary review of literature across environmental education and built environment studies yielded a series of diagrams and tables that convey the major tenants of GBL. Second, these intellectual resources were shared with an expert panel of practitioners and scholars in both education and architecture in two web-based focus group settings. Finally, insights from the focus groups were used to improve the frameworks including the creation of additional tools to connect green building knowledge domains with current standards for science education.

Interdisciplinary literature review

The foundation of the framework begins with the core dimensions of environmental literacy (knowledge, skills, affect, and behaviors) (McBride et al., 2013 ) which are then adapted to the topic of green building design (Table  1 ). Frameworks from the realms of education and architectural studies are then used to build each of these dimensions outward. First, the domains of knowledge and skills in this framework are informed by a revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002 ). The dimension of “skills” is here identified as “procedural knowledge” and combined with the other dimensions of knowledge to illustrate a continuum of knowledge from understanding (factual and conceptual knowledge) to action (procedural knowledge). Next, frameworks for green building design are used to establish a series of categories for green building knowledge (Table  2 ). The section on “ Green building knowledge and skills ” additionally includes a review of key crossover themes between green buildings and the NGSS to identify the strong potential for curricular integration. Finally, the themes of affect and behavior within green building education are discussed. The result is a provisional framework for GBL that can be used to both create and evaluate green building curriculum for the K-12 classroom.

Focus groups

Following ethics approval and consent of the participants, the first iterations of Tables  1 and 2 were shared with professionals in two focus group settings. One focus group was comprised of professionals in the realm of environmental and science education ( n  = 5), hereafter called the “Educator Focus Group.” The second focus group engaged built environment (BE) professionals across interior design and architecture who all had experience in the area of green building design ( n  = 7), hereafter called the “BE Focus Group.” Both groups were comprised of a mix of practitioners and academic scholars. A convenience sampling technique followed by a snowball sampling technique were both used to identify and recruit focus group participants. The researcher invited contacts in her own network and requested that those contacts help to identify other professionals who could offer valuable perspective on the topic of green building education. This sampling resulted in a group of experts who are all in North America and mostly located in regions across the USA. The Educator focus group included one West coast educator, a Midwest scholar, a Midwest sustainability coordinator originally from India, an East coast educator, and an East coast non-profit manager. The BE focus group included one scholar from the Mountain West, an architect from the Midwest, a scholar/architect from Turkey who resides in the Midwest, two scholars from the Southern US, a scholar from the East coast, and a scholar from Canada. Both focus group sessions were 60-min long, conducted online, and included a 10-min presentation of the frameworks by the researcher followed by a structured conversation that focused on obtaining expert feedback. Consensus was not derived through successive quantitative surveys, as is common in Delphi panels. Instead, points of contention were discussed as they arose in the focus group setting and the researcher ensured that all points of view were registered before changing topics.

The transcripts from each focus group were imported into qualitative analysis software and analyzed by the researcher in a two-step coding process that first identified topics of discussion through open coding then a second examination of the data to coalesce topics into broader themes. The final Tables  1 and 2 frameworks presented here are the result of integrating feedback across the professional and disciplinary perspectives. The “ Major features of green building literacy ” are presented in the next section followed by a summary of the three major themes that arose in the focus group settings in reaction to the frameworks.

Major features of green building literacy

Green building knowledge and skills.

What kind of knowledge might a green building literate citizen possess? The sections below unpack the multiple dimensions of green building knowledge. The Taxonomy table from the Krathwohl ( 2002 ) adaptation to Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956 ) is a framework commonly employed by environmental education scholars (e.g., Iozzi, Laveault, & Marcinkowski, 1990 ; Monroe, Andrews, & Biedenweg, 2008 ). The framework posits a six-step cognitive process dimension (remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create) and draws it across four different kinds of knowledge (factual, conceptual, procedural, metacognitive). Green building lesson plans can incorporate the six cognitive processes. Further, green building knowledge can fall along this spectrum of knowledge types. The sections below take the first three knowledge types as a starting point to define a typology for green building knowledge.

Factual green building knowledge

The factual information that underlies green building design is vast. Green buildings intersect with a wide set of environmental issues (materials, energy, water, etc.). However, numerous existing frameworks are used to organize and measure what it means for a building to be green. These tools can be used to organize content areas for green building lesson planning. Table  2 collects themes in one place, where categories are derived from previous GBL frameworks (Shiao et al., 2013 ), green building rating systems (CHPS, 2014 ; International Living Future Institute, n.d. ; USGBC, 2008 ), and green school award programs (Pastorius & Marcinkowski, 2013 ) and focus group feedback. Further inspiration was drawn from the McLennan ( 2004 ) compendium on philosophies of sustainable design. The five key categories most commonly found across green building rating systems include sustainable sites, location and transportation, energy and atmosphere, water, materials, and indoor air quality. The category of “shape of building” has been added to this framework given the importance of building orientation on the site and building size relative to the number of occupants. The Living Building Challenge, the most stringent guideline in North America, additionally includes categories of social equity and beauty to argue that green buildings not only perform well ecologically, but also socially with enduring esthetics (International Living Future Institute, n.d. ). The study of green buildings can also include economic analyses since various building features add costs, save costs, and sometimes pay for themselves over time. The concept of lifecycle analysis is especially pertinent for studying building materials, where the Braungart, McDonough, and Bollinger ( 2007 ) notion of “cradle to cradle” products (products designed to avoid the landfill) can be taught. The rating system dedicated specifically to schools in the USA, the Collaborative for High Performing Schools (CHPS), additionally includes the category “operations and metrics,” which addresses themes such as green cleaning, ongoing maintenance, and the monitoring of building performance of the building over time (CHPS, 2014 ). The category of “local and healthy food” is included because green building and landscape design can offer infrastructure for sustainable food production and consumption. This category may be especially pertinent for K-12 educators who already introduce lesson plans on local food systems and wish to intersect these themes with built environment education. Finally, the category of “policy” was added to the framework based on focus group feedback that stressed the importance of the political context for green building design. Addressing the broader social systems within which green buildings are created is yet another lens for understanding human impacts on ecosystems.

Conceptual green building knowledge

Taken together, the categories in Table  2 outline the foundation for an increasingly sophisticated understanding of green buildings. Beyond a grasp of individual building elements (factual knowledge) is the understanding of the complex interrelationships between building elements, and the ways in which these built features interact with the local communities and local ecologies—the human, air, water, plant, and animal life that are affected by the building (conceptual knowledge) (Fig.  1 ). Conceptual knowledge may include, for example, making the connection between a light bulb, functional illumination in the room, and the building energy that comes from a nearby coal power plant, which is then connected to air quality. Another example of conceptual understanding would be making the connection between an exotic hardwood and the cultural and ecological effects of deforestation in another country, a lesson that would highlight themes of building materiality, biodiversity loss, and social equity. Thus, while factual information within the categories described above can be taught and tested, a more advanced curriculum is needed to help students to connect factual knowledge into a systems-level understanding of green building themes.

figure 1

Factual and conceptual green building knowledge. This diagram shows the many ways that green building themes can be connected to broader social and ecological systems

Procedural green building knowledge (skills)

Beyond increasing factual and conceptual knowledge of green buildings, increasing procedural knowledge of green building issues moves students from understanding into action. Procedural knowledge relative to green buildings involves an expansive array of skill sets. Table  2 offers examples of procedural green building knowledge for each factual knowledge domain. Procedural knowledge in green buildings can draw on various disciplines. It can involve research on building materials, mathematical calculations on energy or financial savings, or hands-on activities such as building furniture from salvaged materials or installing a rain barrel. Procedural knowledge also spans across the life of a built environment—from designing and constructing to inhabiting and maintaining.

Green building knowledge and the NGSS

Factual, conceptual, and procedural green building knowledge can be acquired in standards-aligned green building education programs. An in-depth examination of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) reveals the many ways that green building design themes can help educators to meet a variety of performance expectations (PEs) within standards across grade levels (NGSS Lead States, 2013 ). Additional file 1 illustrates a provisional overlapping of the NGSS standards and PEs with the 14 domains of green building knowledge (from Table  2 ). While isolated opportunities exist across the NGSS framework in areas such as energy, matter, and Earth’s systems, the areas with the highest potential are (1) Earth and Human Activity (ESS3) and (2) Engineering Design (ETS1).

Green building education can align quite well with the Earth and Human Activity (ESS3) PEs from Kindergarten through 12th grade. Beginning in Kindergarten with standards that require students to “communicate solutions that will reduce the impact of humans on the land, water, air, and/or other living things in the local environment” (K-ESS3-3) to standards such as the fifth grade PE to “obtain and combine information about ways individual communities use science ideas to protect the Earth’s resources and environment” (5-ESS3-1). Green building themes can advance through the upper grades with middle school requirements such as “apply scientific principles to design a method for monitoring and minimizing a human impact on the environment” (MS-ESS3-3) and high school PEs such as “use a computational representation to illustrate the relationships among Earth systems and how those relationships are being modified due to human activity” (HS-ESS3-6).

The engineering design standards (ETS1) within the NGSS additionally present a clear opportunity for green building education. The PEs for these standards were written quite broadly around the idea of “design process,” which can connect to a variety of disciplines such as architecture, engineering, product design, and well beyond. The PEs in ETS1 additionally require rich overlaps between technical, social, and environmental domains such as the middle school Standard MS-ETS1-1:

Define the criteria and constraints of a design problem with sufficient precision to ensure a successful solution, taking into account relevant scientific principles and potential impacts on people and the natural environment that may limit possible solutions (MS-ETS1-1).

The ETS1 standards in high school provide similar, and more complex, guidance:

Evaluate a solution to a complex real-world problem based on prioritized criteria and tradeoffs that account for a range of constraints, including cost, safety, reliability, and aesthetics, as well as possible social, cultural and environmental impacts (HS-ETS1-3).

Standards such as these could engage students, for example, in the design process for a piece of furniture for their classroom that meets a set of given functional, social, and environmental criteria. Beyond encouraging technical skills, these projects additionally provide avenues to make connections to themes of esthetics and social justice. In route, students could engage with additional NGSS standards such as MS-PS1-3 that encourages exploration of how “synthetic materials come from natural resources and impact society” and MS-LS2-3 which requires students to “develop a model to describe the cycling of matter and flow of energy among living and non-living parts of an ecosystem.” This is an example of how a single green building theme like furniture design can overlap with the physical and life sciences as students engage in a design process guided by the ETS1 engineering design standards.

Affective dispositions and green buildings

Just as the “environmentally literate individual has a well-developed set of environmental values or morals” (McBride et al., 2013 , p.7), so too does the green building literate citizen. Beyond having knowledge, a green building literate student may also have attitudes and values that shape knowledge and become a basis for environmental action. Within the Table  1 framework, affective dispositions include a person’s environmental sensitivity, environmental concern, self-efficacy, feelings of personal responsibility, and willingness to take action. Affective depositions such as these have a dual role as both an outcome to which we might aspire (e.g., environmentally sensitive citizens) and a predictor of other positive outcomes (e.g., environmentally responsible behaviors). Scholars across disciplines have taken an interest in affect for its potential importance in the process of learning (e.g., Picard et al., 2004 ) and for the links to pro-environmental action (e.g., Ajzen, 1991 ; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987 ; Stern, 2000 ). It should be noted, however, that environmentally responsible behaviors are often multi-determined by an array of predictors where attitudes have been shown to be an unstable predictor across studies (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002 ). Within the Hungerford and Volk ( 1990 ) “Environmental Behavior Model,” affective dispositions occupy every dimension of the framework—from entry-level to ownership to empowerment variables—that all lead toward citizenship behavior. This is all to say, the relationship between affect and behavior is complex and rarely linear. Research further shows that attitudinal factors, such as environmental sensitivity, are outcomes that typically occur for individuals over many years and are influenced by factors such as role models and time in nature (Chawla, 1998 ; Marcinkowski, 1998 ; Tanner, 1980 ).

Despite the growing body of research on affect in fields of education, environmental education, and conservation psychology, the study of affect in green buildings is yet in the nascent stages. In the realm of green building literature, we have much yet to understand about how affect is influenced by green building design, and conversely, how green building design practices are advanced by people with positive affective dispositions. Each of these angles—alternatively viewing affective dispositions resulting from and contributing to green building practices—merits further elaboration.

First, previous research illustrates that context matters for fostering environmental sensitivity. Chawla ( 1998 ) found numerous pathways to environmental careers that included influences such as frequent contact in nature and solitude in nature, both experiences that can be fostered by green landscape design. On the other hand, and more specific to building interiors, McCunn and Gifford ( 2012 ) conducted one of the earliest studies on how a green office environment impacts employee environmental attitudes. Their results were surprising in that employee attitudes dropped as green building features increased. The researchers suggest that dissatisfaction with the building design, and perhaps faded novelty of the green building, were potential reasons for the negative attitudes. It appears to make a difference who occupies the green office building, however. A study in Australia found that office building occupants with higher levels of environmental concern were more likely to forgive a green building’s shortcomings (Deuble & de Dear, 2012 ).

Second, it is possible that positive emotions about green buildings will bring about positive outcomes for green buildings, where positive affect becomes a building block toward action. Sung et al. ( 2014 ) present pioneering quantitative work on GBL in a study of over 1000 Taiwanese college students. They found that attitudes about green buildings were an essential link between knowledge and behaviors. In fact, they found that “[w]ithout attitudes and responsibility as mediators, greater knowledge indicated poorer behavior” (Sung et al., 2014 , p. 173). Taken together, the research thus far suggests that green building attitudes can work for and against the pursuit of building green. The study of affect and green buildings is complex and potentially fertile area for future research. Research is especially lacking for youth in the K-12 school environment.

Despite the need for better understanding about affect in and for green buildings, there are several key takeaways regarding “affect” for practitioners interested in increasing GBL. The first is that attitudes and values about green buildings are not likely to change rapidly for building users. Green buildings are one potentially positive force for engendering environmental sensitivity along with other factors like access to nature and environmental role models, and these are influences that work over time. Further, practitioners designing curricula and interventions for green building education may want to understand the initial affective dispositions of learners relative to environmental themes to create the appropriate starting point for lesson planning. Finally, affect plays a role in the process of green building education just as it does in any educational process. Fredrickson ( 2001 ) argued that positive emotions allow people to “broaden” their scope of attention and “build” intellectual resources. Therefore, green building education that is infused with positive learning experiences may help learners to open up to novel experiences and revise their mental models of what the built environment can be.

Behaviors and green buildings

The ultimate goal of environmental education is to bring about change not only in people’s minds but in tangible benefits to our natural and built environment (e.g., Hines et al., 1987 ). The work here aligns well with the Sung et al. ( 2014 ) view of green building actions that focuses first on involvement and decision-making relative to green design and then expands to encompass more general environmentally responsible actions. Thus, within a framework of GBL, two distinct types of behaviors can be examined: actions that (1) advocate for green building practices, and (2) occur in and around green buildings.

First, a major goal of green building education is to inspire action that advances the green building movement. Marcinkowski ( 2010 ) conceptualizes behavior as multi-faceted, including actions taken individually and collectively on levels local, national, and global. These many forms of action are applicable to the topic of GBL. For example, consider the many ways a student could take action on energy issues. At the level of the building, a student can help turn off lights and shut down computers. The same student could work with peers in an environmental club to advocate for energy efficiency on their school campus. Further reach beyond the school building might include trying behaviors at home or writing local legislators about energy issues in public buildings. In this way, green building education can provide a link to planning and policy conversations in the classroom given the broader social systems (such as building codes, regulations, and guidelines) that either hinder or support innovative building design.

Second, consider the occupant actions within buildings that impact the performance of a green building. The repertoire of actions possible within a green building are largely determined by the opportunities a building affords such as recycling, composting, adjusting thermostats, and so on. Schools promoting green building education can align opportunities for environmentally friendly practices within the building with educational programming. The lessons for students are twofold. First, students can build awareness about how the physical built environment is structured to either hinder or support environmental action. Second, students can learn how informed and active building occupants can make a difference for their own school building’s environmental performance.

Focus group results and discussion

Education and built environment (BE) professionals provided input on the frameworks in Tables  1 and 2 . These tables were improved and Additional file  1 was created as a result of participant feedback. The three broad themes addressed by experts (each given a pseudonym) are summarized below.

Theme 1: framing green building literacy

The Table  1 framework for GBL resonated across groups and participants. Various professionals, however, recommended different ways to frame the importance of GBL. Numerous experts wanted to see more clear links between green building design and the realm of policy and planning given that the political and city planning context is a critical set of factors that can limit or give rise to innovative green building design (e.g., Simons, Choi, & Simons, 2009 ). BE professionals further expressed concern that building occupant political views will shape how individuals experience green buildings and respond to green building education programs, a notion that has some potential connection to the broader discourse on political consumerism (e.g., Wirt, 2017 ). The theme of policy was thus added to the framework. Claire discussed the complexity by noting that “there’s kind of a transactional thing that happens there with the attitudes that people bring into the building” that can either promote or deter environmentally friendly actions in buildings. The Table  1 “affective dimensions” category was split into two sub-themes as a result of this discussion. Stephen, an expert in using green schools as teaching tools, further advocated for stronger ways to frame green buildings for educators. He recommended framing green buildings as physical manifestations and microcosms of the larger environmental values that many educators already seek to foster in students. In sum, conversations across groups revealed the variety of lenses through which green buildings can be viewed. The work here examines green buildings for STEM education and maintains a dominant focus on the building itself and immediate landscape (the set of decisions that are largely within the power of school districts and architectural designers to make). However, educators, curriculum developers, and designers have vast options to tailor green building themes to their unique educational contexts and purposes.

Theme 2: green building knowledge categories

Numerous focus group participants indicated that Table  2 with “green building knowledge categories” was one of the key contributions of this body of work. As James, a public school curriculum coordinator, expressed:

Table two jumps out as a very effective set of principles and illustrations that dovetails very well into the sort of work that public schools are looking towards when it comes to the meaningful integration of sustainability practices. It's one thing to build the building, but … the practices are everything (James).

Discussion around the specific Table  2 categories comprised the major portion of both focus group sessions. The green building knowledge categories were thus impacted and refined as a result of the focus group feedback. Participants recommended that the titles of the knowledge categories maintain alignment with the prominent standards for green building design, which may be especially helpful for curriculum within schools with certified green buildings. Key points of conversation (in order of appearance in the framework) included:

Location and transportation: This category was originally included within “sustainable sites” but was extracted and given its own category as recommended by members of the BE focus group. This choice also reflects the latest changes within the LEED ® Green Building Rating System (USGBC, n.d. ).

Social justice: Educator focus group participants debated the inclusion of the “social justice” category. Stephen questioned if the theme deviated to far from the core topic of green buildings and Janice additionally commented that the theme could be difficult to address in lower elementary classes. However, three other participants vigorously defended the importance of keeping social justice in the framework, with one educator noting that “It is so front and center” (Sara) for the work that she does in public schools. James further emphasized the point commenting that “one cannot separate equity from environmental and sustainability focuses. It’s essential for kids.” These latter perspectives synchronize with the choice of the developers of the rigorous “Living Building Challenge” standards for ecologically friendly buildings, which include social justice as a core set of guidelines for living buildings (International Living Future Institute, n.d. ).

Local and healthy food: The Collaborative for High Performing Schools (CHPS) includes “school gardens” as a credit within the sites category (CHPS, 2014 ). Given that food system themes largely occur outside the building, the researcher asked participants if this category cohered with the other content in Table  2 . Educators and BE professionals overwhelmingly agreed that the built environment plays an important supporting role in sustainable farm-to-table food production and that this category fits well with current health food initiatives already happening at many schools. James summarized the group sentiments:

It [local and healthy food] is an authentic daily practice-driven integration that capitalizes upon required and normal school function, a critical one inside our schools, but we have found that integrating our outdoor garden as well as our hydroponic garden alongside recycling, composting and food donation has been an extraordinarily effective vehicle for all age levels. So I’m glad to see that represented here. “I think it’s low hanging fruit that you are wise to include” (James).

Two members of the Educator focus group did express some concern that “there is going to be a lot of red tape” (Janice) and logistical issues (Sara) in terms of connecting school gardens to school cafeterias. Public health concerns, student allergies, and pre-existing contracts with food vendors were several of the potential issues highlighted.

Policy: As mentioned previously, the topic of politics and policy was noted by BE focus group members as a potentially important issue to include. Inclusion of this category could encourage educators to engage social studies or civics themes into green building lesson planning. This theme could also inspire teaching about the green building rating systems themselves as guidelines that could be adopted into policy in the future.

Theme 3: implementation within schools

A central theme in the Educator focus group was the ways in which frameworks for GBL can be useful to educators and curriculum developers. The conversation began with James noting his frustration with identifying useful frameworks to inform practice. His comments highlighted the challenge of providing frameworks as tools for curriculum development, and particularly the challenge of striking a balance between providing overly broad versus excessively specific guidance. Janice suggested, and the educators all agreed, that alignment between GBL and science standards is a critical missing piece for promoting adoption of green building education in K-12 classrooms. Additional file 1 was created in response to this concern, and the tables therein reveal a multitude of connections between green building themes and the NGSS standards.

Numerous professionals asked clarifying questions about what types of school buildings, and school systems broadly, are the target audience for GBL frameworks. Within this conversation, the group discussed the ways that GBL can be promoted in schools both with and without green buildings—and for a spectrum of green buildings from partial renovations to entire new construction buildings. Educators additionally emphasized the importance of ensuring that these themes are not only pursued within special private and charter schools, but also within public school systems that may have less access to resources for green building design. The frameworks presented here are broad enough to apply to both green certified and non-green buildings across both school types and age groups. They are tools for educators and curriculum developers to use as a catalyst for connecting their unique contexts to green building design to advance a great variety of learning outcomes in K-12 science classrooms.

Overall, the group of professionals confirmed and expanded the conceptualizations of green building knowledge, contributing to the overarching question guiding this inquiry, which sought to define key qualities of a green building literate citizen. Despite having a variety of professional perspectives among participants, a key limitation to the focus groups was the sampling frame that began with the author’s own network and expanded outward. Three participants were foreign born; however, the dominant perspectives are US-centric and may need adaptation to other settings.

Green building education, while prominent in architectural and engineering professions, is scarce for the general public. Green building education can begin in K-12 schooling to enhance science education amid increasing calls to teach students about human impacts on nature (NGSS Lead States, 2013 ). If advances are to be made for public green building education, a framework for outlining the diverse educational content and outcomes could provide a useful starting point for curricula that are formal, informal, or even non-formal in nature. The “ Major features of green building literacy ” matrix builds on previous work to propose a framework for green building literacy. The major features discussed were knowledge (factual, conceptual, and procedural), affect, and behavior. This work calls for green building education that is not only factual in nature but also interweaves complex topics into a more conceptual understanding of green buildings and scaffolds toward skills and actions. However, a “strong conception” (Stables & Bishop, 2001 ) of green building literacy calls for building occupants who are both “reading” and “writing” green buildings. Building occupants are not only passive dwellers of buildings, but individuals who are an active part of a green building’s performance and have the capability to advocate for better building practices.

Abbreviations

Built environment

The Collaborative for High Performing Schools

  • Green building literacy

Indoor environmental quality

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

Next Generation Science Standards

Performance expectation

United States Green Building Council

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T .

Article   Google Scholar  

Barr, S., Dunbar, B., & Schiller, C. (2012). Sustainability in schools: Why green buildings have become a catalyst. Educational Facility Planner, 46 (1), 19–22.

Google Scholar  

Berkowitz, A. R., Ford, M. E., & Brewer, C. A. (2005). A framework for integrating ecological literacy, civics literacy, and environmental citizenship in environmental education. In E. Johnson & M. Mappin (Eds.), Environmental education and advocacy: Changing perspectives of ecology and education (pp. 227–266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.2980/1195-6860.2006.13/423:eeaacp/2.0.co.2 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain . New York: David McKay.

Braungart, M., McDonough, W., & Bollinger, A. (2007). Cradle-to-cradle design: Creating healthy emissions—a strategy for eco-effective product and system design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15 (13), 1337–1348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.08.003 .

Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited: A review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29 (3), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969809599114 .

CHPS (2014). Project scorecard: 2014 U.S. collaborative for high performing school (CHPS) criteria. https://chps.net/sites/default/files/2014_US-CHPS-Scorecard.pdf . Accessed 1 Feb 2019.

Cole, L. B. (2013). The green building as medium for environmental education. The Michigan Journal of Sustainability, 1 (1), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.3998/mjs.12333712.0001.012 .

Cole, L. B. (2015). Fostering green building literacy in the school building: A study of five middle schools in the United States. Children & Youth Environments, 25 (3), 145–174. https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.25.3.0145 .

Cole, L. B. (2018). The teaching green building: Five theoretical perspectives. In F. W. Leal, R. Marans, & J. Callewaert (Eds.), Handbook of sustainability and social science research. World sustainability series (pp. 107–125). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67122-2_6 .

Cole, L. B., McPhearson, T., Herzog, C., & Kudryavtsev, A. (2017). Green infrastructure. In A. Russ & M. E. Krasny (Eds.), Urban environmental education review (pp. 261–270). Ithaca: Cornell Press.

de Saussure, F. (1966). Course in general linguistics . New York: McGraw Hill.

DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (6), 582–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L .

Deuble, M. P., & de Dear, R. J. (2012). Green occupants for green buildings: The missing link? Building and Environment, 56 , 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.02.029 .

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56 (3), 218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218 .

Gill, Z. M., Tierney, M. J., Pegg, I. M., & Allan, N. (2010). Low-energy dwellings: The contribution of behaviours to actual performance. Building Research & Information, 38 (5), 491–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2010.505371 .

Higgs, A. L., & McMillan, V. M. (2006). Teaching through modeling: Four schools’ experiences in sustainability education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38 (1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.3200/joee.38.1.39-53 .

Hines, J., Hungerford, H., & Tomera, A. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18 (2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482 .

Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21 (3), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1990.10753743 .

International Living Future Institute. (n.d.). The living building challenge 3.1: A visionary path to a regenerative future. http://living-future.org/lbc . Accessed 1 Feb 2019.

Iozzi, L., Laveault, D., & Marcinkowski, T. (1990). Assessment of learning outcomes in environmental education. In Methods and techniques for evaluating environmental education . Paris: UNESCO.

Jan, Y.-L., Lin, M.-L., Shiao, K.-Y., Wei, C.-C., Huang, L.-T., & Sung, Q.-C. (2012). Development of an evaluation instrument for green building literacy among college students in Taiwan. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 8 (3), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.4018/jthi.2012070104 .

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8 (3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401 .

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41 (4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 .

Marcinkowski, T. (1998). Predictors of responsible environmental behavior: A review of three dissertation studies. In H. R. Hungerford, W. Bluhm, T. Volk, & J. Ramsey (Eds.), Essential readings in environmental education (pp. 247–276). Champaign: Stipes.

Marcinkowski, T. (2010). Major features of environmental literacy . Melbourne: Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Florida Institute of Technology.

McBride, B., Brewer, C., Berkowitz, A., & Borrie, W. (2013). Environmental literacy, ecological literacy, ecoliteracy: What do we mean and how did we get here? Ecosphere, 4 (5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00075.1 .

McCunn, L. J., & Gifford, R. (2012). Do green offices affect employee engagement and environmental attitudes? Architectural Science Review, 55 (2), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2012.667939 .

McLennan, J. F. (2004). The philosophy of sustainable design: The future of architecture . Kansas City: Ecotone Publishing.

Monroe, M. C., Andrews, E., & Biedenweg, K. (2008). A framework for environmental education strategies. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 6 (3–4), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/15330150801944416 .

Murry, J. W., Jr., & Hammons, J. O. (1995). Delphi: A versatile methodology for conducting qualitative research. The Review of Higher Education, 18 (4), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1995.0008 .

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states . Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Pastorius, E., & Marcinkowski, T. (2013). A comparative analysis of federal and selected state green school frameworks. In Paper presented at the green schools national conference, west Palm Beach, Florida .

Picard, R. W., Papert, S., Bender, W., Blumberg, B., Breazeal, C., Cavallo, D., et al. (2004). Affective learning—A manifesto. BT Technology Journal, 22 (4), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BTTJ.0000047603.37042.33 .

Portillo, M., & Rey-Barreau, J. A. (1995). The place of interior design in K-12 dducation and the built environment education movement. Journal of Interior Design, 21 (1), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1668.1995.tb00207.x .

Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution and directions in the 1990s . Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.

SEED Center. (n.d.). Defining the Green Workforce. http://theseedcenter.org/Resources/SEED-Toolkits/Defining-the-Green-Workforce . Accessed 1 Sept 2018.

Shapiro, B. (2015). Structures that teach: Using a semiotic framework to study the environmental messages of learning settings. Eco-thinking, 1 (1), 5–17.

Shiao, K. Y., Lin, M. L., & Sung, Q. C. (2013). Curriculum innovation for fostering green building literacy in general education. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 284-287 , 1290–1294. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.284-287.1290 .

Simons, R., Choi, E., & Simons, D. (2009). The effect of state and city green policies on the market penetration of green commercial buildings. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 1 (1), 139–166.

Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classroom and community. Nature and Listening, 4 , 1–7.

Stables, A. (1998). Environmental literacy: Functional, cultural, critical. The case of the SCAA guidelines. Environmental Education Research, 4 (2), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462980040203 .

Stables, A., & Bishop, K. (2001). Weak and strong conceptions of environmental literacy: Implications for environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 7 (1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620125643 .

Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56 , 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175 .

Sung, Q.-C., Lin, M.-L., Shiao, K.-Y., Wei, C.-C., Jan, Y.-L., & Huang, L.-T. (2014). Changing behaviors: Does knowledge matter? A structural equation modeling study on green building literacy of undergraduates in Taiwan. Sustainable Environment Research, 24 (3), 173-183.

Tanner, R. T. (1980). Significant life experiences: A new research area in environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 11 (4), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1980.9941386 .

Tawain Green Building Label. (n.d.). About Green Building Labeling. http://twgbqanda.com/english/e_about.php?Type=1&menu=e_about_class&pic_dir_list=0# . Accessed 1 Feb 2019.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2012). Annual energy outlook 2012: With projections to 2035 . Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Water Use Today. https://www3.epa.gov/watersense/our_water/water_use_today.html . Accessed 1 Feb 2019.

USGBC. (2008). LEED 2009 for Schools New Construction and Major Renovations. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=5547 . Accessed 1 Feb 2019.

USGBC. (n.d.). United States Green Building Council. http://www.usgbc.org/ . Accessed 1 Feb 2019.

Wirt, F. M. (2017). Politics, products, and markets: Exploring political consumerism past and present . New York: Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Wu, D. W. L., DiGiacomo, A., Lenkic, P. J., Wong, V. K., & Kingstone, A. (2016). Being in a “green” building elicits “greener” recycling, but not necessarily “better” recycling. PLoS One, 11 (1), e0145737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145737 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the panel of experts for their time and insight in the development of the frameworks presented in this study. The author would additionally like to thank Dr. Michaela Zint and Dr. Laura Zangori for their assistance with early drafts of this work. Additional gratitude is extended to the peer reviewers whose constructive feedback contributed greatly to this piece.

This open-access publication is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture federal agricultural experiment station capacity grants (project no. MO-HANC0001) from the United States Department of Agriculture.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Missouri, Columbia, USA

Laura B. Cole

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The author made 100% of the contributions to the current work. The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura B. Cole .

Ethics declarations

Authors’ information.

Dr. Laura Cole is an interior design educator and architectural studies scholar who has been involved in the green building movement in various capacities for over 15 years. She worked as a designer in the global architecture firm of Perkins + Will where she co-lead the sustainability team and mentored junior designers on their pathways toward becoming LEED accredited professionals. Her Ph.D. work was in the combined areas of Architecture and Natural Resources and Environment. She is now an educator at the University of Missouri where she teaches sustainable design and works on interdisciplinary research teams to advance green building education in theory and practice.

Competing interests

The author declares that she has no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Additional file

Additional file 1:.

Provisional Alignments between the NGSS and Green Building Knowledge Categories. (DOCX 38 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cole, L.B. Green building literacy: a framework for advancing green building education. IJ STEM Ed 6 , 18 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0171-6

Download citation

Received : 07 September 2018

Accepted : 22 April 2019

Published : 29 May 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0171-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Green building education
  • Environmental literacy
  • Science literacy
  • Curriculum design
  • Next generation science standards

research paper on green building materials

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • View all journals
  • My Account Login
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • Open access
  • Published: 21 October 2021

Global greenhouse gas emissions from residential and commercial building materials and mitigation strategies to 2060

  • Xiaoyang Zhong   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2720-2652 1 ,
  • Mingming Hu 1 , 2 ,
  • Sebastiaan Deetman   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1820-658X 1 , 3 ,
  • Bernhard Steubing   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1307-6376 1 ,
  • Hai Xiang Lin 1 , 4 ,
  • Glenn Aguilar Hernandez   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3740-8221 1 ,
  • Carina Harpprecht   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2878-0139 1 , 5 ,
  • Chunbo Zhang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1729-8515 1 ,
  • Arnold Tukker 1 , 6 &
  • Paul Behrens 1 , 7  

Nature Communications volume  12 , Article number:  6126 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

30k Accesses

87 Citations

106 Altmetric

Metrics details

  • Climate-change mitigation
  • Environmental impact

Building stock growth around the world drives extensive material consumption and environmental impacts. Future impacts will be dependent on the level and rate of socioeconomic development, along with material use and supply strategies. Here we evaluate material-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for residential and commercial buildings along with their reduction potentials in 26 global regions by 2060. For a middle-of-the-road baseline scenario, building material-related emissions see an increase of 3.5 to 4.6 Gt CO2eq yr-1 between 2020–2060. Low- and lower-middle-income regions see rapid emission increase from 750 Mt (22% globally) in 2020 and 2.4 Gt (51%) in 2060, while higher-income regions shrink in both absolute and relative terms. Implementing several material efficiency strategies together in a High Efficiency (HE) scenario could almost half the baseline emissions. Yet, even in this scenario, the building material sector would require double its current proportional share of emissions to meet a 1.5 °C-compatible target.

Introduction

Housing is one of the most immediate basic human needs, along with food and clothing 1 . The provision of residential and commercial buildings is responsible for over one-third of energy use and energy-related GHG emissions globally 2 . There are two main ways to mitigate building-related emissions: (1) decarbonize/reduce the energy needed for in-use buildings and (2) decarbonize/reduce the production of materials and energy in construction. Environmental policies have traditionally focused on improving energy efficiency and renewable energies in the use phase while neglecting material efficiency in construction 3 , 4 . A policy approach that focuses only on in-use emissions may miss important opportunities in construction 5 , 6 . Indeed, there may also be important tradeoffs between pre-use and in-use emissions whereby highly energy-efficient buildings may require more materials in construction 7 , 8 , 9 . In 2018, the manufacturing of building materials alone accounted for 11% of global energy- and process-related GHG emissions 2 , as a result of consuming over half of global concrete and brick 10 , some 40% steel 11 , and a large number of other metals and nonmetallic minerals 12 .

Global trends indicate a rapid increase in demand for new buildings in the coming decades. This is mainly driven by growing populations and increasing wealth around the world (especially in Asian and African regions 2 , 13 ), but also due to a demand for housing upgrades in highly urbanized areas 14 . As such, large amounts of materials are needed. Building technology has advanced substantially over the past decades. For example, buildings can be built with lower environmental impacts (such as using wood 15 or less metal for the same structural properties 16 ), designed for a longer lifespan 17 , or for a higher post-consumer recycling rate 18 . However, despite these technological advances, less-efficient building practices are still being widely used, especially in regions that will see most of this demand 19 , 20 . These trends pose a critical challenge in reducing GHG emissions from building materials and meeting global climate targets.

Research on the environmental impacts of building materials and mitigation strategies has gained momentum only in the past decade. Studies have either focused on residential building materials in a single country 17 , 21 , 22 , 23 or represent a certain material type at one time 24 , 25 , 26 . Further, calculating emissions requires consistent scenarios of both materials demand and process emissions intensities 6 , whereas most studies address just one of these aspects 27 , 28 . A recent study 29 assessed the climate impacts of materials efficiency strategies on residential buildings in 9 large economies. Though valuable, this study omitted most emerging African and Asian regions (which represent much of the increasing housing demand in the future 2 , 13 ) as well as the global non-residential buildings.

Here we develop a global building material emission model that integrates a dynamic material assessment model for estimating future building materials demand, and a prospective life cycle assessment (LCA) model to estimate emissions from materials production. We include 7 materials in 4 residential buildings types and 4 commercial building types across 26 world regions (see Methods). We investigate the development of global GHG emissions of residential and commercial building material production. We investigate the impacts of major material efficiency strategies and the implications of these strategies for meeting climate targets (Methods). We find a continuous increase in building material-related GHG emissions on a global level and dramatically different emission trends across world regions. We observe significant emission reduction and material loop closing potentials in the considered material efficiency strategies. We outline important mitigation opportunities and challenges associated with building materials for achieving global climate targets.

Scenario narratives

We base our investigation on outputs from IMAGE 30 , 31 , a globally integrated assessment model, and the ecoinvent 32 life cycle inventory database. Different shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) 33 are modeled in IMAGE reflecting possible future developments of socioeconomic parameters. We select the “middle-of-the-road” SSP2 pathway 34 which expects a moderate population and GDP growth. We use the socioeconomic 30 , 31 and energy transition scenarios 35 under IMAGE-SSP2 as inputs for our dynamic building materials model and prospective LCA, respectively. We explore two scenarios for the development of material requirements and emissions to 2060: a Baseline scenario, given by the SSP2-baseline parameters from IMAGE, and a High Efficiency scenario, assuming full implementation of several important materials efficiency strategies drawn from the literature (see Table  1 ). The time period from now to 2060 is characterized by population rise with income converging across economies 30 , 33 , which have dramatic impacts on building construction and material demands. It also gives the industry sufficient time to develop and scale-up technologies for a sustainable transition 36 . The literature supporting the feasibility of these strategies often provides a target by 2050, not 2060. In such cases, we extrapolate these targets to 2060. Please see Methods the  Supplementary Information for full details on the model, data, and scenarios.

Baseline emissions

The Baseline scenario sees a continuous increase in building-material-related GHG emissions at a global average of 0.7% yr −1 (from 3.5 to 4.6 Gt CO 2 eq yr −1 ) between 2020 and 2060. This trend varies significantly across income groups (see Fig.  1a, b ). The low- and lower-middle-income group sees the largest increase from 750 Mt (22%) in 2020 to 2.4 Gt (51%) in 2060 (see Fig.  1b ), mainly due to a surge in population and economic development. For example, India, the Rest of South Asia, and Africa (excluding South Africa) will more than double their material-related emissions from 2020 to 2060. By comparison, the high-income group sees a slight decline in absolute terms and a sharp fall as a proportion of global emissions, from 595 Mt (17%) in 2020 and 530 Mt (12%) in 2060. A similar trend is seen in the upper-middle-income group (Fig.  1c ). Figure  1d shows the regional comparison of cumulative material-related GHG relative to GDP, highlighting contrasting economic challenges for the adoption of mitigation strategies. In general, high-income regions (such as the US, Japan, and Western Europe) will see relatively lower emissions and, therefore, have higher affordability of deep decarbonization.

figure 1

a Development of global GHG emissions for seven materials during 2020–2060. b Percentage evolution of GHG emissions for three income groups during 2020–2060. c Development of emissions in the top 6 emitting regions (by 2060), occupying over 60% of the total, during 2020–2060. d Expected cumulative GHG emissions over 2020–2060 relative to present GDP (2020 value from the IMAGE integrated assessment model, at purchasing power parity) for 26 global regions.

The China region and India remain the top two emitters for the period 2020–2060, with India becoming the largest emitter by 2053 (Fig.  1c ). The top 6 regional emitters in 2060 will all be in Asia or Africa (Fig.  1c ). Overall, Asian regions see the majority (over 65%) of cumulative building material emissions over 2020–2060, followed by Africa at slightly over 10%. For material types, steel and concrete remain the largest emission sources at around two-thirds of the total, followed by brick (18%) and aluminum (8%) (Fig.  1a ). The share of metal-related emissions sees a slight decrease from 43 to 39% over the period 2020–2060 likely due to an increase in secondary metals production.

Strategies for emissions mitigation

The mitigation potential of material efficiency strategies depends on the in-use building stock, construction practices, and the future techno socio-economic development in different regions. Figure  2 shows the reduction potential for each strategy at their High Efficiency levels during 2020–2060 (in comparison with the Baseline values and when each strategy is adopted independently of each other). In general, the reduction potential decreases from the top layer (building demand) down to the middle layer (material demand) and the bottom layer (material supply). That is, in terms of the feasible interventions drawn from the literature, housing demand reduction has a higher potential for reducing impacts than improving material intensity, which in turn has a higher potential than increasing efficiency in the material supply.

figure 2

The three colors left to right represent the three layers in the modeling framework: building demand, material demand, and material supply (see Supplementary Fig.  1 ). These three approaches correspond approximately to the general “avoid–shift–improve” emission mitigation framework 43 . The whiskers represent the sensitivity intervals of GHG in the High Efficiency (HE) scenario (given by 20 percentage point variations for each strategy; see the Supplementary Information for further details). Note that the scales for Global, the China region, and India differ from other regions, and the scale for ‘more intensive use’ differs from other strategies.

Globally, more intensive use represents the largest emission reduction potential of 56.8 Gt CO 2 eq as it simultaneously avoids a percentage of all materials. As a consumption-oriented strategy, more intensive use of the building stock represents the possibility to decouple the growth of buildings demands from economic development 20 , 44 . It does not necessarily lead to lower wellbeing and can be achieved by e.g., lower vacancy rates 45 , 46 , more shared offices 47 , and telecommuting 48 . As such, this strategy is heavily dependent on lifestyle and behavior transitions 20 . This potential is especially large in rapidly urbanizing regions such as China and highly urbanized regions like Western Europe, which will see shrinking populations and an opportunity to increase housing intensity 45 , 49 .

Lifetime extension yields lower demands for new construction and emission reductions of 6.6 Gt globally. The opportunities for lifetime extension vary depending on the region. For example, although some older buildings can have their lifetimes extended in regions where the services life is very short (such as China, Japan, and Southeastern Asia), frequent demolition is often not due to construction quality but because of evolving urban planning and land policies 50 , 53 , 52 . Longer-lived buildings built today will only bring significant environmental returns decades later and only if planners ensure that the urban form is sustainable over the longer term. Poor urban planning can result in the lock-in of poor, unsustainable urban environments which would require demolition and reorganization in the future.

Light-weighting gives potential cumulative reductions of 14.1 Gt CO 2 eq. This may be achieved by large-scale adoption of emerging technologies including novel structural design 53 , typology optimization 54 , additive construction (such as 3D printing) 55 , and the use of high strength steel and aluminum 5 . Some adjustment of building regulations is likely essential for such light-weighting transitions. Depending on the technologies and level of adoption there may be larger opportunities for light-weighting than those adopted in Table  1 , e.g., 20% or more concrete reduction 29 , 56 . The current cost barriers to this implementation may reduce over time through deployment-led learning. Increasing the use of timber in buildings would result in GHG emission reduction of 5.5 Gt CO 2 eq (due to the lower emission intensity of timber production) and provide long-term carbon storage 37 , 57 . In a similar manner, secondary production of metals significantly reduces energy use and emissions, avoiding mining and early manufacturing emissions 28 . As post-use scraps become increasingly available, higher recycling and reuse play an increasingly important role in mitigation, with a cumulative potential of 6.5 Gt GHG over 2020–2060 (Fig.  2 ). To approach the maximum recycling potential, rapid up-front industrial investment is needed to develop both new technologies and supporting infrastructure 26 , 58 .

In the material production stage, the energy transition (to decarbonize energy used in the background LCA system) and efficiency improvements (to reduce energy in the foreground LCA system) have the combined potential for reductions of 4.6 Gt CO 2 eq by 2060 (Fig.  2 ). The environmental impacts of both strategies vary across material types due to differing energy intensities 28 . For example, the emission intensity of aluminum is expected to see significant declines due to the energy transition, whereas the impact on concrete is minor. As such, the effectiveness of the two strategies will reduce in the long term when energy-intensive primary metals are increasingly replaced with low-energy secondary sources 26 . This partly explains the diverging reduction potential across regions. For example, India sees a larger mitigation potential from the energy transition (61 Mt) than the China region (56 Mt) (India sees a smaller reduction when the other five strategies are implemented individually) because the latter sees a significantly higher share of secondary metals. Another reason contributing to this difference is the larger emission intensity reduction in India’s material manufacturing industry from a deeper and faster energy transition.

A High Efficiency scenario

The  High Efficiency scenario, with all material efficiency strategies (M1–M7) simultaneously applied, sees a 78 Gt CO 2 eq reduction (or 49%) in cumulative building-material related GHG emissions during 2020–2060 (Fig.  3 ). Note that the total savings from the High Efficiency  scenario will not be equivalent to the aggregation of savings from each of the independent strategies because strategies can be mutually exclusive. That is, we apply these strategies (M1–M7) simultaneously and explicitly in the model framework to avoid double counting potential savings. The globally increasing trend in the Baseline scenario is reversed into a continuous decline (at an annual rate of −2.4%) during 2020–2060 (Fig.  3 ). Regions seeing the largest mitigation potential between this scenario and the Baseline are the China region (28%), India (16%), Western Europe (6%), Western Africa (5%), and the Middle East (5%) (in descending proportional order).

figure 3

a Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared with the 1.5/2 °C-compatible mitigation pathways where the building material sector shares a proportional global carbon budget at 7.5%. b CO 2  emissions compared with the 1.5°C-compatible mitigation pathways where the building material sector sees a doubling share of the global carbon budget. The shaded bands in green represent the sensitivity intervals of CO 2 emissions in the HE scenario (as defined by 20 percentage point variations for each strategy, for more details see Supplementary Table  13 ). Other shaded areas represent the assessed range for the GHG emission pathways of the building material sector that are consistent with the 2 and 1.5 °C climate targets according to the IPCC, respectively, for the 33–67th percentile of TCRE (the transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions (see Methods for details).

Climate targets require deep decarbonization in all sectors 59 . The building materials we consider accounted for ~7.5% of global CO 2 emissions on average between 2015 and 2019. If the building material sector is to keep a share of 7.5% of the carbon budget available in this century, the HE scenario, with cumulative emissions of ~76 Gt CO 2 during 2020–2060 is generally consistent with a 2 °C target (with a range of 81–144Gt at the 33–67th percentile) (see Methods). Reductions in the HE scenario are insufficient for a 1.5 °C-compatible pathway, with an emission allowance of 25–57 Gt (33–67th percentile range) during 2020–2060. Figure  3a shows the HE scenario and the trajectories stylized for the building materials sector to meet 2 °C and a 1.5 °C-compatible pathway, assuming an emission allowance of 7.5% of the carbon budget. Figure  3b shows that for the HE scenario to be consistent with a 1.5 °C-compatible pathway the sector would require a doubling of its emission allowance. We further see that the emission reduction strategies we consider reach a saturation point around 2060 and that further strategies are needed to stay consistent with both the 1.5 and 2 °C pathways. The fact that several building materials are produced by difficult to decarbonize sectors, such as steel and cement production 60 , presents a significant challenge.

There are various ways to bridge this emission reduction gap in the 1.5 °C-compatible pathway and to address the additional reductions required after 2060. First, we could assume even more ambitious versions of the strategies we investigate. However, it is questionable whether even more intensive use, further lengthening of lifetimes, and further enhancement of recycling or reuse rates are realistic. Second, we could consider other reduction strategies not included here. For example, wood cascading 61 and brick reuse 12 could reduce the use of primary materials, although compared to steel and cement these contributions would likely be small. In the material supply layer, emissions could be reduced in steel and cement production through various carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies, such as chemical absorption 62 , and calcium looping 63 , among others. These technologies, and negative emission technologies which remove carbon emissions directly from the atmosphere, are still in early development and face significant technological and socioeconomic barriers 64 , 65 . Although substantial further developments could take place up to 2060, we consider them as a complement to existing and more predictable technologies (e.g., recycling) and regulatory developments (e.g., building longevity), as broadly highlighted in the literature 20 , 29 . Finally, we could assume that it is too difficult to rapidly reduce the emissions for building materials in a 1.5 °C-compatible pathway with the implication that easier-to-decarbonize sectors should realize a faster and deeper emission reduction.

Closing material cycles

Past decades have seen an increase in building material outflows from 1.5 Gt in 1980 to 6.5 Gt in 2020, with over 95% comprising of nonmetallic materials (especially concrete and brick) and less than 5% being metals (Supplementary Fig  3 ). The majority of nonmetallic outflows, except for a small fraction downcycled as base materials, are sent as solid waste to landfills 12 . For metals, despite the already high recycling rate, inflows are much larger than outflows and primary production was still the main input of steel (80%), copper (76%), and aluminum (69%) (over the last decade, Supplementary Fig.  3 ).

In the future, both outflows and inflows will be influenced by housing demand and material use strategies. On a global level, the outflow-to-inflow ratio of building materials will see a continuous increase in both Baseline and High Efficiency scenarios. The High Efficiency scenario would see a significant increase, increasing the material cycle and allowing more secondary production (Fig.  4a ). However, as with other patterns, there are significant differences across regions (Fig.  4b ). The potential for closing metal cycles is relatively high in high-and upper-middle-income regions that see a large in-use stock but a shrinking population such as East Asia (i.e., Japan, Korea region, and the China region), Europe, and North America, which see a steady stream of end-of-life outflow and decreasing inflow. These regions have the potential for fully closing the aluminum cycle between 2021 and 2060 under the High Efficiency scenario (Fig.  4b ). By contrast, low-and lower-middle-income regions, including most African regions, South Asia, and Southeast Asia will be faced with severe scrap shortages for closing the cycles. This is not only due to the rapidly rising inflow driven mainly by population growth but also the reduced outflow from a relatively smaller in-use stock.

figure 4

a Change in outflow-to-inflow ratios over time (in 2001–2020, 2021–2040, and 2041–2060, respectively) under two scenarios. The shaded bands represent the sensitivity intervals of outflow-to-inflow ratios in the High Efficiency (HE) scenario (given by 20 percentage point variations for each strategy, for more details see Supplementary Table  13 ). b Share of recycled output in total input for aluminum, steel, and copper, respectively, during 2021–2060 in eight global regions (see sub-regions in the Supplementary Table  11 ). The whiskers represent the sensitivity intervals of the share in the HE scenario. Black dots represent the share in the Baseline scenario.

Some of the metal shortages in growing regions may be bridged by the surplus in shrinking regions. For example, moving surplus aluminum scrap generated in East Asia to other Asian and African regions could yield a significant reduction in the need for primary aluminum production (around 90 Mt cumulatively between 2041 and 2060), resulting in a cumulative emission reduction of ~1Gt CO2eq (in the High Efficiency scenario). It is noteworthy that China, the world’s largest importer of scrap metals for many years 66 , may become a major exporter in the future due to the surging outflow against shrinking inflow. In this context, China’s policy restrictions on solid waste imports in recent years may be the first sign of this development 67 . Post-consumer scraps of bulk nonmetallic materials are usually processed nearby and mostly consumed by other infrastructural sectors (namely downcycling) 46 . If building demolitions are expected to be very high in certain periods then infrastructure projects should bear this in mind, reducing their requirements for primary materials and using these secondary materials. To ensure material scraps can be collected and turned into valuable resources more generally, it is important to be aware of “where and when which types of material outflows from stocks become available” 12 , 68 , 69 . Both interregional and intersectoral cooperation could help in urban mining and future material production capacity planning.

Building emissions are often complicated by trade-offs along the building lifecycle, especially between the embodied emissions (from building materials production) and operational emissions (from indoor energy use) 9 , 20 . Among the strategies considered in this study, more intensive use, more recovery, a faster energy transition, and production efficiency improvements are trade-off-free approaches since they don’t have negative impacts on energy use during building occupation (more intensive use also reduces the operational energy use 70 , 71 ). For lightweight design, we only consider opportunities for avoiding material overuse through improved design and technological developments, which would not compromise the building’s thermal performance, so here indoor energy use will not be affected either. For material substitution by wood, previous research confirms the environmental benefits through case studies considering both the production-stage savings and potential operation-stage losses 15 , 72 . In terms of lifetime extension, there are concerns that older buildings tend to have lower standards so prolonging service life may increase operational energy requirements 73 . Although our analysis does not quantify this trade-off, we should highlight that such an assessment should include a longer research period (far beyond 2060) as many buildings built today will remain in use until the end of the century. On the other hand, today’s buildings have generally higher energy performance compared to earlier stocks, with many recent improvements in building codes and standards (73 countries had building codes in 2018) 2 , 74 . This means the impact of extending the service life on energy use will be declining (even negligible in low-energy buildings). Further, much of the potential improvement in operational energy intensity lies in appliances, lighting, renewable energy, and human behavior that are not necessarily dependent on the main building structure and can be optimized at any time 75 , 76 . For example, in the Chinese building sector, around half of energy savings by 2050 arise from improvements in lighting, equipment and appliances, fuel switching, and renewable electricity 77 . The other half arises from space conditioning and heating, which requires both newer equipment (such as chillers) and building refurbishments (such as envelope upgrading). The environmental benefits from building refurbishment have been reported in several case studies 21 , 78 . In general, the deployment of these strategies would not be hindered by trade-offs between pre-use and in-use emissions. This is not only due to the net environmental gains (over the losses) but because of the different characteristics between the embodied and operational emissions, that is, the operational emissions are generally easier to decarbonize and can often be mitigated during a building’s service life.

A prominent barrier to the widespread implementation of these strategies is the fragmentation of inter-departmental policy design over time. For example, evolutionary urban planning and land policies—driven by function and/or esthetic preferences—can force a rearrangement or rezoning of the urban environment, including buildings, streets, or other infrastructure. This would increase the demolition frequency and the risk of shorter building lifetimes (in spite of their good physical condition) 51 . The lack of policy consultation between stakeholders due to political and financial interests can result in uncoordinated land urbanization and social-economic development 49 , 79 . This can lead to land urbanizing at a faster rate than the population, resulting in ‘ghost cities’ and a higher vacancy rate, especially in shrinking or population-outflow regions 79 , 80 . The policy options for dealing with high vacancy rates and underutilized building capacity also rely on cross-sectoral policy packages including upstream land resources management 80 and downstream taxation on vacant and rent dwellings 81 . Another example is the split incentives faced by tenants and owners in building operations. That is, those shouldering the costs of lower building efficiencies (e.g., tenants pay more for energy costs) are often those not in the position to do anything about them, which could contribute to the construction of low-quality buildings and thus frequent retrofits/demolitions. As such, policymakers are turning more towards multi-criteria decision and stakeholder-related analyses 82 .

The second barrier facing these strategies is the investment required for infrastructure and technology development 19 . For example, secondary metal production can be economically and technologically challenging for large-scale alloys separation by type 38 , 83 . This is especially important when we consider that the proportion of emissions from high- and upper-middle-income regions may reduce as low- and lower-middle-income regions increase. This further increases the global tension between the growth in housing demand and the investment required to mitigate the environmental impacts. As such, these strategies require coordination across regions on resource extraction, technology, and finance.

Notwithstanding these barriers, recent years have seen increasing efforts in promoting material efficiency. In terms of waste management policies, there have been several important developments within circular economy packages, such as the 3R principle (reduce, reuse, and recycle) in China 84 and the Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) adopted by the European Commission 85 . Strategies like light-weighting require more advanced technologies that are emerging in highly developed regions, highlighting the importance of technology marketization and international collaborations to share best practices. Similarly, higher occupation levels will likely be seen first in highly urbanized regions due to increasing vacancies from shrinking populations. The rise of a sharing economy also creates new opportunities for lower occupancy. For example, as attempted in French urban renewal projects, parking lots are shared to avoid new infrastructure construction and emissions 2 .

Overall, we show that the growing housing demand drives large material-related GHG emissions which are beginning to shift from high-and upper-middle-income to low- and lower-middle-income regions. Nearly half of these emissions can be avoided through scaling up material efficiency strategies on a global level, although efficacy varies significantly with region and strategy. However, with all observed material efficiency strategies simultaneously applied, the expected emissions from building materials are still higher than what would be compatible with the 1.5 °C climate target (if the remaining global carbon budget is allocated proportionally across sectors). To meet the 1.5 °C targets, building materials would require double the current share of their carbon allowance, suggesting the need for faster emission mitigation in easier-to-decarbonize sectors. In the absence of fundamental changes in manufacturing processes, negative emissions technologies seem necessary in the second half of the century to offset process-related emissions that are challenging to avoid. This study may help policymakers to better understand the mitigation opportunities and challenges at regional and global levels and therefore how upfront investment in facilities, guidelines, and collaborations is needed.

We develop an integrated global building-material-emission model that consists of a dynamic building material model and a prospective LCA model. This integrated model allows us to calculate the environmental impacts of materials used to shelter the global population and explore the impact of different material use and supply strategies on emissions. We apply this model to investigate two scenarios determined by seven key strategies in 26 global regions toward 2060 (see a conceptual framework in Supplementary Fig.  1 ). We include 4 residential building types (detached houses, semi-detached houses, apartments, and high-rise buildings) in urban and rural areas, respectively, and 4 commercial building types (offices, retails and warehouses, hotels and restaurants, and other commercial buildings). We include seven important construction materials: steel, concrete, brick, aluminum, copper, glass, and wood, by extending a comprehensive building material database 27 , 86 . IMAGE includes 26 regions (Supplementary Information), which we use as the resolution to illustrate heterogeneity in results across the globe.

Calculation of annual material inflow and outflow

We extend a dynamic building material assessment model (BUMA) to calculate building construction materials on a regional and yearly basis. BUMA is a cohort-based and stock-driven dynamic model, developed by Deetman et al. 27 on the basis of an open dynamic material system of Pauliuk and Heeren 87 and a floorspace model from Daioglou et al. 31 . In brief, BUMA allows for the translation from building materials stock, which is determined by socioeconomic parameters and materials use intensity of buildings, to materials inflow and outflow under a certain lifetime distribution. To do this, we derive primary socioeconomic determinants from the IMAGE platform and materials intensity from the literature. The materials intensity across global regions is collected from literature 27 , 86 and further developed by adding clay brick due to the extensive use of fire clay brick in buildings construction. For building lifespan, we apply Weibull distributions with related shape and scale parameters drawn from the literature 27 . Full details are provided in the  Supplementary Information .

Calculation of GHG per kg of material production

We use a prospective LCA model to calculate GHG emissions of the production of each material type. Following the LCA procedures standardized by the International Organization for Standardization 88 , we first select “cradle-to-gate” as the scope of materials production. The ecoinvent 3.6 database 32 is chosen as the lifecycle inventory (LCI) database due to its global coverage and high-resolution product categories. The regional differences in materials production are distinguished where possible. Details are shown in the  Supplementary Information . We consider climate change as the key impact category, and Global Warming Potentials (with a 100-year time horizon) 89 are used. Finally, we use the activity browser (AB) software 90 to calculate the environmental impacts of the cradle-to-gate production of one kg of materials under different scenarios. The Activity Browser implements the superstructure approach 91 and significantly facilitates the modeling of future scenarios.

Scenario development

We investigate two scenarios that share the same socioeconomic background including population and GDP development but differ in the material intervention strategies applied. The primary socioeconomic assumptions are based on the SSPs of IMAGE and for consistency, we select the SSP2 baseline path to represent the “middle-of-the-road” pathway which expects a medium population and GDP growth 34 . In the Baseline scenario, historical trends in the building sectors around the world largely continue. We use this scenario to serve as a baseline for understanding the reduction potentials of any additional strategies. The High Efficiency scenario represents the deep emission mitigation pathway where seven strategies are implemented simultaneously. More details of the assumptions under each scenario and relevant uncertainty analysis can be found in the  Supplementary Information .

Estimation of the mitigation rate consistent with the 1.5 and 2 °C budget

To investigate the global importance of these interventions on climate targets we also compare the Baseline and HE scenarios with stylized mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5 and 2 °C targets. Some sectors, such as electricity, are easier to decarbonize than the building material sector 60 . We, therefore, assess the efficacy of mitigation scenarios by comparing building material-related emissions against the same proportional share of the global carbon budget as today, and a situation in which the building material share doubles. We follow four steps to generate sectoral mitigation pathways consistent with the 1.5 and 2 °C carbon budgets. First, we derive the global carbon budgets from the IPCC’ 1.5 °C special report 59 (see Table 2.2 in the report 59 ), which indicates the remaining carbon budgets from 1/1/2018 to the time reaching net-zero carbon (or 2100) to meet the 1.5 °C Paris Agreement goal and for the former 2 °C Cancun goal. Carbon budgets here are estimated for the 33rd, 50th, and 67th percentile of TCRE (transient climate response to cumulative emissions of carbon) 92 . Second, we subtract the carbon budgets by the CO 2 emission in 2018 and 2019 93 to obtain the updated carbon budgets from 2020 onwards. Third, we assume the building material sector is to share the carbon budget by varying proportions. Specifically, we explore two scenarios where the building material sector shares a proportional budget of 7.5% (its average proportion of the total anthropogenic CO 2 emissions during 2015–2019 94 ) or a doubled budget at 15.0%. We have considered CO 2 emission alone (representing ~92% of total GHG emissions in the sector) for this analysis since other GHGs have very different warming dynamics and comprise only a small proportion of total GHG emissions in the building material sector. Note that in practice, multiple factors (e.g., economic costs 8 ) may affect sectoral effort-sharing (and therefore carbon budget allocation) in achieving a specific climate target in a period of time. Finally, we calculate mitigation rates under different carbon budgets using the method from the ref. 95 (see Eq. 4 in ref. 95 ).

Limitations and uncertainties

While the construction-material database we use represents the best available on a global level, it could be improved to give higher geographical resolution (e.g., with national-specific and even GIS-based datasets), a higher resolution in building types, and broader coverage of material types. The materials not considered here (e.g., carpet, paint, and ceramic tiles 96 ) represent further emissions on top of those examined here and potentially present different strategies for mitigation. Further, the process-based ecoinvent LCI database may underestimate some emission coefficients via truncation errors (the exclusion of small processes that are hard to quantify or those outside the defined system boundary). The future development of LCI databases for hybrid environmental flow coefficients (integrating bottom-up process data and top-down macroeconomic input-output data) may improve the completeness of assessments 91 . Another improvement of the LCI database could include accounting for the carbon sequestration effect of wood-based products using dynamic sub-models to capture the temporal effect of slow, gradual uptake of carbon in forests, along with other important factors such as the origin and rotation periods of harvesting 97 . A similar improvement could also include a dynamic sub-model to incorporate CO 2 reabsorption for concrete once construction is complete 25 . Finally, it is worth noting that our results are not predictions of the future but represent scenarios or pathways by which efficiency strategies can be implemented to mitigate building-material-related emissions. A sensitivity analysis (see Figs.  2 – 4 and the  Supplementary Information for more details) is performed for understanding key interventions in the High Efficiency scenario, which further confirms both significant mitigation potentials and challenges for achieving ambitious climate goals.

Data availability

The data that support the dynamic material and emission modeling are available from the corresponding literature references and the  Supplementary Information . We have also deposited them in the Zenodo repository 98 in a form that can be easily used with our model code: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5171943 . The energy system transition scenarios are not publicly available as part of the data is under license, but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.  Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The python code used to generate the results on material inflow, material outflow, and greenhouse gas emissions is available on Zenodo 98 : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5171943 .

Rao, N. D. & Min, J. Decent living standards: material prerequisites for human wellbeing. Soc. Indic. Res. 138 , 225–244 (2018).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

International Energy Agency. 2019 global status report for buildings and construction: towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector. (2019).

Allwood, J. M., Ashby, M. F., Gutowski, T. G. & Worrell, E. Material efficiency: a white paper. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 , 362–381 (2011).

Article   Google Scholar  

Hertwich E. et al. Resource Efficiency and Climate Change: Material Efficiency Strategies for a Low-Carbon Future. Summary for Policy Makers. A Report of the International Resource Panel. (Nairobi, Kenya, 2019).

Dhar S., Pathak M. & Shukla P. R. Transformation of India’s steel and cement industry in a sustainable 1.5 °C world. Energy Policy. 137 , 111104 (2020).

Milford, R. L., Pauliuk, S., Allwood, J. M. & Müller, D. B. The roles of energy and material efficiency in meeting steel industry CO 2 targets. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 , 3455–3462 (2013).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dixit, M. K., Fernández-Solís, J. L., Lavy, S. & Culp, C. H. Need for an embodied energy measurement protocol for buildings: a review paper. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 , 3730–3743 (2012).

Steininger K. W., Meyer L., Nabernegg S. & Kirchengast G. Sectoral carbon budgets as an evaluation framework for the built environment. Buildings and Cities 1 , 337–360 (2020).

Venkatraj, V., Dixit, M. K., Yan, W. & Lavy, S. Evaluating the impact of operating energy reduction measures on embodied energy. Energy Build. 226 , 110340 (2020).

Herczeg M. et al. Resource efficiency in the building sector. Final Report. European Commission, DG Environment, Rotterdam (2014).

Müller D. B., Wang T. & Duval B. Patterns of iron use in societal evolution . (ACS Publications, 2011).

Krausmann, F. et al. Global socioeconomic material stocks rise 23-fold over the 20th century and require half of annual resource use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 114 , 1880–1885 (2017).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kc, S. & Lutz, W. The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: Population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Glob. Environ. Change 42 , 181–192 (2017).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Moura, M. C. P., Smith, S. J. & Belzer, D. B. 120 Years of U.S. residential housing stock and floor space. PLoS ONE 10 , e0134135 (2015).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Heeren, N. et al. Environmental impact of buildings—what matters? Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 , 9832–9841 (2015).

Allwood J. M. et al. Sustainable materials: with both eyes open . Cambridge, UK: UIT Cambridge Limited (2012).

Huang, T., Shi, F., Tanikawa, H., Fei, J. & Han, J. Materials demand and environmental impact of buildings construction and demolition in China based on dynamic material flow analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 72 , 91–101 (2013).

Blengini, G. A. Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: a case study in Turin, Italy. Build. Environ. 44 , 319–330 (2009).

International Energy Agency. Material efficiency in clean energy transitions . (IEA, Paris, 2019).

Hertwich, E. G. et al. Material efficiency strategies to reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with buildings, vehicles, and electronics—a review. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 , 043004 (2019).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Pauliuk, S., Sjöstrand, K. & Müller, D. B. Transforming the Norwegian dwelling stock to reach the 2 degrees celsius climate target. J. Ind. Ecol. 17 , 542–554 (2013).

Giesekam, J., Barrett, J., Taylor, P. & Owen, A. The greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options for materials used in UK construction. Energy Build. 78 , 202–214 (2014).

Huang, B. et al. Building material use and associated environmental impacts in China 2000–2015. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 , 14006–14014 (2018).

Hu, M. et al. Iron and steel in Chinese residential buildings: a dynamic analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 , 591–600 (2010).

Cao, Z. et al. The sponge effect and carbon emission mitigation potentials of the global cement cycle. Nat. Commun. 11 , 3777 (2020).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Liu, G., Bangs, C. E. & Müller, D. B. Stock dynamics and emission pathways of the global aluminium cycle. Nat. Clim. Change 3 , 338–342 (2013).

Deetman S. et al. Modelling global material stocks and flows for residential and service sector buildings towards 2050. J. Clean. Prod. 245 , 118658 (2020).

Van der Voet, E., Van Oers, L., Verboon, M. & Kuipers, K. Environmental implications of future demand scenarios for metals: methodology and application to the case of seven major metals. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 , 141–155 (2019).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

IRP. Resource Efficiency and Climate Change: Material Efficiency Strategies for a Low-Carbon Future. Hertwich, E., Lifset, R., Pauliuk, S., Heeren, N. A report of the International Resource Panel. (United Nations International Resource Panel (IRP), Nairobi, Kenya, 2020).

Stehfest E., van Vuuren D., Bouwman L. & Kram T. Integrated assessment of global environmental change with IMAGE 3.0: model description and policy applications. (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), 2014).

Daioglou, V., van Ruijven, B. J. & van Vuuren, D. P. Model projections for household energy use in developing countries. Energy 37 , 601–615 (2012).

Wernet, G. et al. The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21 , 1218–1230 (2016).

Riahi, K. et al. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42 , 153–168 (2017).

Van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 42 , 237–250 (2017).

Mendoza Beltran, A. et al. When the background matters: using scenarios from integrated assessment models in prospective life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 24 , 64–79 (2020).

Rockström, J. et al. A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science 355 , 1269–1271 (2017).

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Churkina, G. et al. Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nat. Sustain. 3 , 269–276 (2020).

Allwood, J. M., Cullen, J. M. & Milford, R. L. Options for achieving a 50% cut in industrial carbon emissions by 2050. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 , 1888–1894 (2010).

Elshkaki, A., Graedel, T., Ciacci, L. & Reck, B. K. Resource demand scenarios for the major metals. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 , 2491–2497 (2018).

World Steel Association. Factsheet: energy use in the steel industry. https://www.worldsteel.org/publications/fact-sheets.html (2016).

Kuipers et al. E. Assessing environmental implications associated with global copper demand and supply scenarios from 2010 to 2050. Glob. Environ. Change 49 , 106–115 (2018).

Harpprecht C., van Oers, L., Northey, S. A., Yang, Y. & Steubing, B. Environmental impacts of key metals’ supply and low-carbon technologies are likely to decrease in the future. J. Ind. Ecol. 1–17 https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13181 (2021).

Creutzig, F. et al. Towards demand-side solutions for mitigating climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 260–263 (2018).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Grubler, A. et al. A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat. Energy 3 , 515–527 (2018).

Gentili, M. & Hoekstra, J. Houses without people and people without houses: a cultural and institutional exploration of an Italian paradox. Hous. Stud. 34 , 425–447 (2019).

Schiller, G., Gruhler, K. & Ortlepp, R. Continuous material flow analysis approach for bulk nonmetallic mineral building materials applied to the German building sector. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 , 673–688 (2017).

Mi, Z. & Coffman, D. M. The sharing economy promotes sustainable societies. Nat. Commun. 10 , 1214 (2019).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Cabrera Serrenho, A., Drewniok, M., Dunant, C. & Allwood, J. M. Testing the greenhouse gas emissions reduction potential of alternative strategies for the english housing stock. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 144 , 267–275 (2019).

Williams, S., Xu, W., Tan, S. B., Foster, M. J. & Chen, C. Ghost cities of China: identifying urban vacancy through social media data. Cities 94 , 275–285 (2019).

Cai, W., Wan, L., Jiang, Y., Wang, C. & Lin, L. Short-lived buildings in china: impacts on water, energy, and carbon emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 , 13921–13928 (2015).

Liu, G., Xu, K., Zhang, X. & Zhang, G. Factors influencing the service lifespan of buildings: an improved hedonic model. Habitat Int. 43 , 274–282 (2014).

Wuyts, W., Miatto, A., Sedlitzky, R. & Tanikawa, H. Extending or ending the life of residential buildings in Japan: a social circular economy approach to the problem of short-lived constructions. J. Clean. Prod. 231 , 660–670 (2019).

Carruth, M. A., Allwood, J. M. & Moynihan, M. C. The technical potential for reducing metal requirements through lightweight product design. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 57 , 48–60 (2011).

Bendsoe M. P. & Sigmund O. Topology optimization: theory, methods, and applications . (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013).

Ghaffar, S. H., Corker, J. & Fan, M. Additive manufacturing technology and its implementation in construction as an eco-innovative solution. Autom. Constr. 93 , 1–11 (2018).

Hansemann G. et al. Lightweight Reinforced Concrete Slab: 130 different 3D printed voids. CPT Worldwide-Construction Printing Technology 2021, 68 https://graz.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/lightweight-reinforced-concrete-slab-130-different-3d-printed-voi (2021).

Arehart, J. H., Hart, J., Pomponi, F. & D’Amico, B. Carbon sequestration and storage in the built environment. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 27 , 1047–1063 (2021).

Dodoo, A., Gustavsson, L. & Sathre, R. Carbon implications of end-of-life management of building materials. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53 , 276–286 (2009).

Rogelj J. et al. Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5 C in the context of sustainable development. (2018).

Davis, S. J. et al. Net-zero emissions energy systems. Science 360 , eaas9793 (2018).

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Höglmeier, K., Steubing, B., Weber-Blaschke, G. & Richter, K. LCA-based optimization of wood utilization under special consideration of a cascading use of wood. J. Environ. Manag. 152 , 158–170 (2015).

Pérez-Fortes, M., Moya, J. A., Vatopoulos, K. & Tzimas, E. CO 2 capture and utilization in cement and iron and steel industries. Energy Proc. 63 , 6534–6543 (2014).

International Energy Agency. CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions . (IEA, Paris, 2020).

Anderson, K. & Peters, G. The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354 , 182–183 (2016).

Hu, X., Wang, C., Lim, M. K. & Koh, S. C. L. Characteristics and community evolution patterns of the international scrap metal trade. J. Clean. Prod. 243 , 118576 (2020).

Dong, D. et al. Scenarios for anthropogenic copper demand and supply in China: implications of a scrap import ban and a circular economy transition. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 161 , 104943 (2020).

Tanikawa, H. & Hashimoto, S. Urban stock over time: spatial material stock analysis using 4d-GIS. Build. Res. Inf. 37 , 483–502 (2009).

Stephan, A. & Athanassiadis, A. Towards a more circular construction sector: estimating and spatialising current and future non-structural material replacement flows to maintain urban building stocks. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 129 , 248–262 (2018).

Wilson, A. & Boehland, J. Small is beautiful US house size, resource use, and the environment. J. Ind. Ecol. 9 , 277–287 (2005).

Stephan, A. & Crawford, R. H. The relationship between house size and life cycle energy demand: implications for energy efficiency regulations for buildings. Energy 116 , 1158–1171 (2016).

Sandin, G., Peters, G. M. & Svanström, M. Life cycle assessment of construction materials: the influence of assumptions in end-of-life modelling. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19 , 723–731 (2014).

Grant, A. & Ries, R. Impact of building service life models on life cycle assessment. Build. Res. Inf. 41 , 168–186 (2013).

Zhong, X. et al. The evolution and future perspectives of energy intensity in the global building sector 1971–2060. J. Clean. Prod. 305 , 127098 (2021).

International Energy Agency, Energy Efficiency 2018, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-efficiency-2018 (2018).

Sandberg, N. H., Sartori, I., Vestrum, M. I. & Brattebø, H. Using a segmented dynamic dwelling stock model for scenario analysis of future energy demand: the dwelling stock of Norway 2016–2050. Energy Build. 146 , 220–232 (2017).

Zhou, N., Khanna, N., Feng, W., Ke, J. & Levine, M. Scenarios of energy efficiency and CO2 emissions reduction potential in the buildings sector in China to year 2050. Nat. Energy 3 , 978 (2018).

Itard, L. & Klunder, G. Comparing environmental impacts of renovated housing stock with new construction. Build. Res. Inf. 35 , 252–267 (2007).

Sorace, C. & Hurst, W. China’s phantom urbanisation and the pathology of ghost cities. J. Contemp. Asia 46 , 304–322 (2016).

Reyes A. Mexico’s housing crisis: vacancy, limited access & deaf policy responses. Int. J. Urb. Sci. 25 , 167–194 (2020).

Liberati, D. & Loberto, M. Taxation and housing markets with search frictions. J. Hous. Econ. 46 , 101632 (2019).

Guarini, M. R., Battisti, F. & Chiovitti, A. A methodology for the selection of multi-criteria decision analysis methods in real estate and land management processes. Sustainability 10 , 507 (2018).

Modaresi, R. & Müller, D. B. The role of automobiles for the future of aluminum recycling. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 , 8587–8594 (2012).

Huang, B. et al. Construction and demolition waste management in China through the 3R principle. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 129 , 36–44 (2018).

Plan CEA. For a cleaner and more competitive Europe. Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/circular-economy/new_circular_economy_action_plan.pdf (2020).

Marinova S., Deetman S., van der Voet E. & Daioglou V. Global construction materials database and stock analysis of residential buildings between 1970-2050. J. Clean. Prod. 247 , 119146 (2019).

Pauliuk S. & Heeren N. ODYM—an open software framework for studying dynamic material systems: Principles, implementation, and data structures. J. Ind. Ecol. 24 , 446–458 (2020).

Standardization IOf. Environmental Management: Life Cycle Assessment; Principles and Framework. (ISO, 2006).

Qin D. et al. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds. Stocker T. F. et al.), 5–14 (2014).

Steubing, B., de Koning, D., Haas, A. & Mutel, C. L. The activity browser—an open source LCA software building on top of the brightway framework. Softw. Impacts 3 , 100012 (2020).

Steubing, B. & de Koning, D. Making the use of scenarios in LCA easier: The superstructure approach. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment , 1–15 (2021).

Collins M. et al. Long-term climate change: projections, commitments and irreversibility. in Climate Change 2013—The Physical Science Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Cambridge University Press, 2013).

Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11 , 1783–1838 (2019).

Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global Carbon Budget 2020. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12 , 3269–3340 (2020).

Raupach, M. R. et al. Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4 , 873–879 (2014).

Crawford, R. H., Stephan, A. & Prideaux, F. Environmental Performance in Construction (EPiC) database . Melbourne: The University of Melbourne (2019).

Hoxha E. et al. Biogenic carbon in buildings: a critical overview of LCA methods. Buildings and Cities. 1 , 504–524 (2020).

Zhong X., Deetman S. & Aguilar-Hernandez G. A. Global greenhouse gas emissions from residential and commercial building materials and mitigation strategies to 2060, GloBUME (v1.0). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5171943 (2021).

Download references

Acknowledgements

X.Z. would like to thank the support from the China Scholarship Council (No. 201806050096).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, 2333 CC, Leiden, The Netherlands

Xiaoyang Zhong, Mingming Hu, Sebastiaan Deetman, Bernhard Steubing, Hai Xiang Lin, Glenn Aguilar Hernandez, Carina Harpprecht, Chunbo Zhang, Arnold Tukker & Paul Behrens

School of Management Science and Real Estate, Chongqing University, Chongqing, 40045, China

Mingming Hu

Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, 3584 CB, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Sebastiaan Deetman

Delft Institute of Applied Mathematics, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands

Hai Xiang Lin

German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Networked Energy Systems, Curiestreet 4, 70563, Stuttgart, Germany

Carina Harpprecht

Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research TNO, 2595 DA, The Hague, The Netherlands

Arnold Tukker

Leiden University College The Hague, Leiden University, 2595 DG, The Hague, The Netherlands

Paul Behrens

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

X.Z. and P.B. designed the research. X.Z. and S.D. developed the dynamic material model. X.Z., B.S., and C.H. conducted the prospective LCA modeling. X.Z. performed the analysis. X.Z. and P.B. interpreted the results. X.Z. drew the figures. X.Z. and P.B. prepared the paper. All authors contributed to discussing the results and writing the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xiaoyang Zhong or Paul Behrens .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Communications thanks Karl Steininger, André Stephan and the other anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, peer review file, source data, source data, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zhong, X., Hu, M., Deetman, S. et al. Global greenhouse gas emissions from residential and commercial building materials and mitigation strategies to 2060. Nat Commun 12 , 6126 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26212-z

Download citation

Received : 29 October 2020

Accepted : 07 September 2021

Published : 21 October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26212-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Architects as catalysts of reuse in construction.

  • Veronica Nicholson
  • Alessio Miatto

Nature Cities (2024)

Regional rare-earth element supply and demand balanced with circular economy strategies

  • Yu-Yao Yang
  • Wei-Qiang Chen

Nature Geoscience (2024)

Differences in energy-saving benefits between the rich and poor: data-driven method to study equity of mandatory energy efficiency policy in Chongqing

Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2024)

Environmental potential of fungal insulation: a prospective life cycle assessment of mycelium-based composites

  • Nicolas Alaux
  • Hana Vašatko
  • Alexander Passer

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2024)

Date and doum palm natural fibers as renewable resource for improving interface damage of cement composites materials

  • Khaled Bendahane
  • Mohammed Belkheir
  • Ahmed Boutaous

Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (2023)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

research paper on green building materials

  • Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

A Growth Spurt in Green Architecture

Buildings made shaggy with vegetation or fragrant with wood are no longer novelties.

A long wooden staircase with a gentle slope runs alongside a wall made of long vertical windows. A forest is outside.

By Stephen Wallis

This article is part of our Design special section about innovative surfaces in architecture, interiors and products.

In the lineup of climate villains, architecture towers above many. The building and construction industries account for some 37 percent of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions, according to the United Nations Environment Program. Three of the most commonly used building materials — concrete, steel and aluminum — generate nearly a quarter of all carbon output.

But there is progress. The use of renewable organic materials like wood, hemp and bamboo is expanding. Carbon-absorbing plants and trees are more widely integrated into architectural design. And even concrete is losing its stigma with the development of low-carbon varieties.

Sustainability-minded architects are adopting these materials in buildings that not only are more environmentally sensitive but also look and feel different from modernism’s concrete and steel boxes.

One of the most potent symbols of the green building revolution — in the public imagination, at least — is the plant-covered high-rise. Building designs draped in vegetation can be found in the portfolios of international architects like Jean Nouvel , Norman Foster , Lina Ghotmeh , Thomas Heatherwick and Kengo Kuma , to name but a few.

No one, however, has done more to promote this type of structure than the Milanese architect Stefano Boeri, who calls his creations Vertical Forests .

The original Vertical Forest — a pair of residential towers with facades incorporating about 800 trees, 5,000 shrubs and 15,000 plants — opened in Milan in 2014. Mr. Boeri has since completed about a dozen more examples, most recently in Huanggang, China, and the Dutch city of Eindhoven.

“What we have done is to use plants, not as ornament,” but as “a kind of biological skin,” Mr. Boeri said. The greenery shades and cools, regulates humidity and absorbs carbon dioxide and pollution. It also serves as a habitat for birds and insects and creates a direct, immediate connection between residents and nature.

The buildings “are always evolving and changing with the seasons,” said Mr. Boeri, who has future projects — some, entire villages — in various stages of development in locations including Cairo, Dubai and the Mexican resort town of Cancún .

Some critics have dismissed the Vertical Forest concept as green washing or eco-bling, arguing that the environmental benefits are negated by the carbon-intensive concrete and steel required to sustain the weight of the trees and plants. Mr. Boeri said studies by the engineering firm Arup found only a 1 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions related to the construction of the Vertical Forest buildings. He added that his firm now typically used prefabricated concrete panels and that it was looking at building with wood, where appropriate, to reduce the carbon footprint.

Mr. Boeri acknowledges the limited environmental impact of single buildings but emphasized the importance of linking “biodiversity hot spots with a network of other green systems.” He imagines that in the future there could be forest cities “for sure.”

One metropolis taking steps in that direction is Singapore. Policies aimed at bringing nature into Singapore’s urban center have produced a cityscape punctuated by buildings that incorporate extensive greenery, including several by the local firm WOHA.

Among WOHA’s best-known designs are the recently completed Pan Pacific Orchard hotel, with its expansive garden terraces overflowing with plantings, and the Oasia Hotel Downtown, a 30-story tower enveloped by a red-mesh lattice interwoven with nearly two dozen species of creeping vines.

“The permeable living facade is part of the passive strategies we implemented to cool the building, lower energy consumption and create a relaxing biocentric space,” said Wong Mun Summ, a co-founder of WOHA. Studies have shown the exterior to be up to 68 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than nearby glass-walled structures, he said. Scaled up sufficiently, infusions of greenery could help repair the so-called urban heat islands created by expanses of asphalt, concrete, glass and steel.

The heat-island effect is a common problem in Asia’s megacities, where rapid development has obliterated many traces of nature. In Chengdu, China, which is now adding park spaces and encouraging urban greenery, Winy Maas, a founding partner of MVRDV in Rotterdam, is working on a 500-foot-high office tower with terraced gardens that cascade from a forested rooftop all the way to the ground.

“This is one of the first tall towers that has outside, walkable and interconnected space,” he said of the design, which includes a sculptural enclosure of metal mesh around the plantings to soften potentially damaging rains and winds. “At 150 meters high, the wind can dry out or kill them.”

Carlo Ratti, an Italian architect and the director of the Senseable City Lab at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has been picked to curate the Venice Architecture Biennale in 2025, is taking the greenery-clad high-rise in another direction. A couple of years ago, he unveiled a proposal for what he described as the world’s first “farmscraper,” in Shenzhen, China.

Dubbed the Jian Mu Tower, the 51-story building will be wrapped in a vertical hydroponic farm. Mr. Ratti has estimated his plan could yield enough produce annually to feed 40,000 people. His studio in Turin is working on prototype modules for the facade.

“At this critical moment, what we architects do matters more than ever,” Mr. Ratti said. “Every kilowatt-hour of solar power, every unit of zero-carbon housing and every calorie of sustainably sourced vegetables will be multiplied across history.”

Another tool for achieving zero-carbon buildings is one of the oldest and most common construction materials: wood. Valued for sequestering carbon dioxide and keeping it out of the atmosphere for decades, if not centuries, wood is now widely engineered into components of so-called mass timber, made with compressed, fire-resistant layers.

Among the timber buildings completed by the New York-based Bjarke Ingels Group, also known as BIG, is a new production facility for the Norwegian furniture company Vestre — “the most environmentally friendly factory in the world,” as Mr. Ingels, who is Danish, described it — in a forest near Magnor, Norway.

The star-shape building is topped with a green roof and solar panels that enhance its energy efficiency. “It’s a pretty striking factory to work in because of the warmth and texture of all the timber,” the architect said. He noted that the locally sourced wood even had an appealing smell.

Jeanne Gang is another architect with an affinity for wood. Her Chicago-based firm, Studio Gang, just completed an academic building and student housing for Kresge College in Santa Cruz, Calif. The gently curling timber-frame residential structures tuck into the densely forested site, their textured wood exteriors echoing the surrounding redwood trees. Ms. Gang described the material choices as “an ecological and poetic response to Kresge’s stunning environment.”

An equally evocative effect, in a very different context, is achieved in the new terminal for Kempegowda International Airport, in Bangalore, India, designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, or SOM, based in Chicago. Conceived as “a model for sustainable development but also as a new experience around connecting to nature,” said the SOM principal Peter Lefkovits, the terminal is notable for its use of engineered bamboo, which clads the columns and is layered in latticed expanses across the ceiling. The design also incorporates hanging plants, lush walls of greenery and water features.

“The idea was to create a building that felt almost like a garden pavilion, with the openness and the qualities of filtered light,” Mr. Lefkovits said. This was the first time his 88-year-old company had used bamboo, a highly sustainable and renewable material because of its fast growth.

Architects are also turning to other natural, carbon-sequestering materials, like hemp, flax and seaweed. Henning Larsen, an international firm based in Copenhagen, recently used reeds to create its first-ever thatched facade, for a new primary school in southern Denmark.

The choice of thatching, which gives the building’s exterior a slightly shaggy, organic texture, was inspired by the local tradition of using wheat as facade cladding, said Jakob Stromann-Andersen, who leads Henning Larsen ’s sustainability and innovation team. Everything about the horseshoe-shape building’s design, he added, was intended to “reinforce connections between the classroom and nature,” including a walkable green roof that slopes down and merges with the landscape at either end.

Organic fibers are also being incorporated into composites like hempcrete or mixed into bioresin panels that are durable enough for building facades. These types of materials are seen as essential in the race toward more sustainable buildings, as are recycled-content bricks and low-carbon concrete, both of which are coming into wider use. Researchers are also experimenting with adding carbon-absorbing algae to concrete to achieve mixtures with net-zero or even negative emissions.

“We cannot simply rely on natural materials, because there just isn’t enough timber and bamboo to build the whole stock of buildings we need,” said Yasemin Kologlu, who leads SOM’s Climate Action Group. “We can’t continue to build the way we are, but there’s not one silver bullet. It needs to be a culmination of maybe more than 30 different strategies for us to get there.”

The State of Real Estate

Whether you’re renting, buying or selling, here’s a look at real estate trends..

Homeowners are adding hidden doors and rooms to foil burglars, eke out extra storage space and prepare for Armageddon .

Charter schools are popping up in struggling malls  as landlords look for alternative tenants and communities seek to increase educational opportunities.

As housing costs soar, Washington State wants to limit annual rent increases to 7%. The move is part of a wider trend to impose statewide rent caps .

Developers across the United States are transforming clusters of old homes into micro restaurants  to cater to the needs of surrounding neighborhoods.

Smaller houses in subdivisions and exurbs are turning into a popular option  for people hoping to hold on to ownership in an increasingly expensive U.S. housing market.

Frequent natural disasters and high inflation have led home insurers to raise their premiums. That is forcing many customers to pare back their policies .

IMAGES

  1. (PDF) GREEN BUILDING AN ENVIRONMENT-FRIENDLY CONCEPT FOR BUILDING

    research paper on green building materials

  2. Green Buildings Research White Paper 2007

    research paper on green building materials

  3. Construction: Green Building Fundamentals, 2nd Edition

    research paper on green building materials

  4. Green Building Materials

    research paper on green building materials

  5. (PDF) Green Building Architecture: A Literature Review on Designing

    research paper on green building materials

  6. Research paper on Eco-Friendly building material and construction tec…

    research paper on green building materials

VIDEO

  1. Sustainable and Versatile: Green Building Solutions for the Future

  2. 23 Different Green Building Materials by Nice engineering 1

  3. Harvesting green vegetables to sell at the market, picking beans, preparing water and cooking

  4. Building materials mountain transport tool- Good tools and machinery can increase work efficiency

  5. Green Building Materials (CH-10)

  6. Harvest agricultural products to sell, enough money to build a solid house foundation

COMMENTS

  1. A comprehensive review on green buildings research ...

    Buildings account for nearly 2/5ths of global energy expenditure. Due to this figure, the 90s witnessed the rise of green buildings (GBs) that were designed with the purpose of lowering the demand for energy, water, and materials resources while enhancing environmental protection efforts and human well-being over time. This paper examines recent studies and technologies related to the design ...

  2. (Pdf) Sustainable Building Material for Green Building Construction

    Abstract and Figures. Materials are the essential components of buildings construction. Chemical, physical and mechanical Properties of materials as well as an appropriate design are accountable ...

  3. Green building research-current status and future agenda: A review

    This is reflected in a recent discussion paper from the GBCA which emphasize utilizing LCA to assess the environmental impacts of building materials in green building assessment. Referring to ISO 14040 and ISO 14044, LCA consists of four phases, i.e. goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and results interpretation.

  4. Sustainability of Green Building Materials: A Scientometric Review of

    In this research, bibliometric data on GPCs were collected from Dimensions databases, and a scientometric analysis was performed using the innovative VOSviewer software (ver. 1.6.19). The scope was to examine the development of GPC for construction applications in the context of a circular economy and as an emerging green building material.

  5. A comprehensive review on green buildings research: bibliometric

    A scientometrics review of research papers on GB sources from 14 architectural journals between 1992 and 2018 was also ... New-type green building materials offer an alternative way to realize energy-saving for sustainable constructions. ... Zhao ZY. Green building research-current status and future agenda: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2014 ...

  6. The Role of Green Building Materials in Reducing Environmental and

    A green building material (GBM) is an ecological, healthy, recycled, or high-performance material that is cable of minimizing its impacts on the environment and human health throughout its life cycle (LC) (including resource use, manufacturing, use, operation, disposal, and recycling) [ 17, 18 ].

  7. Sustainability Considerations of Green Buildings: A Detailed ...

    The concept of green building has gradually formed with the increase in public awareness of environmental protection, which also covers a wide range of elements. The green building is the fundamental platform of sustainable development. This review paper provides solutions for the multi-dimensional and balanced development of green building. Since green building is the development trend of the ...

  8. (PDF) Use of sustainable green materials in construction of green

    Use of Sustainable Green Materials in Construction of Green Buildings for Sustainable Development - ResearchGate. This paper explores the benefits and challenges of using green materials in ...

  9. Sustainable Building Materials: An Eco-Approach for Construction

    This research elucidates the idea of eco-friendly concrete and highlights the benefits attainable from its effective practice towards sustainable construction materials. The design mix employed a water/cement ratio of 0.5, a concrete mix ratio of 1:2:4, varying percentages of 2.5 mm seashells, 4.75 mm river sand as fine aggregates, and granite ...

  10. Research on sustainability evaluation of green building engineering

    Green supply chain management and green building operations are combined in this paper to reduce the use of materials and encourage more effective and efficient energy use. Water is currently used and ensures the prevention and avoidance of any waste and to perform environmentally-sensible building design.

  11. Research on Green Building Materials in Civil Engineering Management

    The state-of-the-art of green building research (2010-2019): A bibliometric review; Research and analysis on the development status and prospect of green building materials and green buildings in the new century; Green building rating systems: A critical comparison between LOTUS, LEED, and Green Mark

  12. A systematic review of green construction research ...

    The study on the impact of the selection of green building materials is insufficient. ... In each cluster, citing papers were considered as the research forefront while cited papers as the intellectual base. 3. Results3.1. Key research topics related to GC. The term co-occurrence network (Fig. 3) consists of 338 nodes and 767 links. The link ...

  13. Rammed earth, as a sustainable and structurally safe green building: a

    To identify the impact of building construction trend, understanding materials, and their life cycle is the most. Therefore, site investigation in brick and cement industries and also construction site, were conducted, as shown in Fig. 2.In the meantime, to fulfil the necessity of alternative sustainable building materials and their suitability in this modern era, a significant step in the ...

  14. Use of sustainable green materials in construction of green buildings

    This paper discusses the use of recycled design products in the construction industry. ... 2020 Green Energy and Technology ed I. Dincer, C. Colpan and M. Ezan (Cham: Springer) Utilization of Alternative Building Materials for Sustainable Construction Environmentally-Benign ... Application and Research of Urban Building Construction Technology ...

  15. (PDF) Research on sustainability of building materials

    Abstract. Sustainable development is one of the most important topics in construction industry. Building materials largely determine the buildings' energy consumption and environmental impacts ...

  16. Green building literacy: a framework for advancing green building

    This paper integrates international green building rating systems to offer 14 green building knowledge categories. This paper additionally provides educators with an integrative framework that places green buildings within infrastructural, ... It can involve research on building materials, mathematical calculations on energy or financial ...

  17. Global greenhouse gas emissions from residential and ...

    Baseline emissions. The Baseline scenario sees a continuous increase in building-material-related GHG emissions at a global average of 0.7% yr −1 (from 3.5 to 4.6 Gt CO 2 eq yr −1) between ...

  18. Research on high quality development strategy of green building: A full

    China's Green Building (GB) evaluation standard has always emphasized the use of Recycled Building Materials (RBM). However, the quality of RBM is a major obstacle to its promotion. Unlike previous studies, this study innovatively developed a four-way evolutionary game model including Local Government (LG), RBM suppliers, developers and homebuyers, and examined their strategy changes from the ...

  19. Green Architecture Hits a Growth Spurt

    The star-shape building is topped with a green roof and solar panels that enhance its energy efficiency. "It's a pretty striking factory to work in because of the warmth and texture of all the ...

  20. The Role of Green Building Materials in Reducing Environmental and

    Conventional building materials (CBMs) made from non-renewable resources are the main source of indoor air contaminants, whose impact can extend from indoors to outdoors. Given their sustainable development (SD) prospect, green building materials (GBMs) with non-toxic, natural, and organic compounds have the potential to reduce their overall impacts on environmental and human health.

  21. Green Building in Moscow: Problems and Contradictions

    Comparable research revealed that capacity barriers, cultural and social resistance, lack of incentives for promotion, inadequate cost data, a limited range of green products and materials, delays ...

  22. Sustainability

    In the 21st century, traditional construction activities exert a severe negative influence on the environment and ecology. To mitigate the negative influence of construction, green buildings have received increasing attention worldwide. Compared with conventional buildings, green buildings have significant advantages for environmental conservation and public health. Although green buildings ...

  23. Life Cycle Assessment of a building using Open-LCA software

    Using "green" concrete as a case-study example, this paper demonstrates that the "sustainability" of a material is spatiotemporally dependent and that end-of-life (functional obsolescence) is an ...

  24. Human Dimensions of Urban Blue and Green Infrastructure during a ...

    Significant challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted that features of a modern, sustainable and resilient city should not only relate to fulfilling economic and social urban strategies, but also to functional urban design, in particular, related to urban blue and green infrastructure (BGI). Using results from a web-based questionnaire survey conducted May-July 2020 in Moscow (Russia ...

  25. Buildings

    Most large construction projects face the problem of cost overruns and failures to meet deadlines mainly due to changes in the cost of building materials. A lot of studies proved the high importance of the cost of building materials for the project budget and highlighted a number of factors that determine the cost of materials. However, modern unstable economic dynamics lead to the need not ...