Sustainable Refurbishment - Case Study Example

Sustainable Refurbishment: A Macro-perspective Insert here The paper presents a meta-analysis of literature and studies on the subject of sustainable refurbishment from a macro-perspective viewpoint. Although no fixed definition of sustainability in buildings was offered from the resources surveyed, the authors have a unified concept of the process (Ratcliffe, et al. 2009; Ebbert and Knaack [cited in Braganca], 2007; Baker, 2009; Douglas, 2006; and Stevenson and Williams, 2007). The pros and cons of adopting sustainable refurbishment as a construction design solution were weighed and the results from recent studies on the topic were reported. Information gathered was synthesized and general recommendations were forwarded. Sustainability in buildings, whether for new ones or for refurbishment, does not necessarily have a fixed definition, although sustainable buildings are described to be sensitive to at least five factors, namely: (1) the local and global environment; (2) consumption of energy, other resources and water; (3) the quality of the immediate internal environment, including the impact on the occupants of the building; (4) financial impact as to cost-effectiveness from a long term and total financial returns perspective; and (5) energy efficiency throughout the economic life of the building (Ratcliffe, Stubbs and Keeping, 2009). ''''''''''' On the other hand, sustainable refurbishment in buildings, according to Ratcliffe, et al. (2009), are mainly concerned with: (1) efficient use of resources; (2) waste minimization; (3) consumption of energy and water; and (4) selection of materials or fixtures which are not harmful to the environment or to the occupants of the building. Other authors, such as Ebbert and Knaack (cited in Braganca 2007), identified aspects of refurbishment such as energy consumption, building construction possibilities, building services, comfort, aesthetics, and finance.' Benefits vs. Issues Proponents of sustainable refurbishment have interesting arguments which function as drivers for the soaring popularity of this construction methodology among various groups. One of these groups is the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) in the United Kingdom, who supports the theory linking sustainability of structures and the over-all value of the building. Inputs concerning the linkages are summarized in Ratcliffe, et al. (2009), where building features are classified in five groups, namely: (1) sustainable site development; (2) water efficiency; (3) energy efficiency; (4) indoor environment quality; and (5) reduced consumption of construction materials. In terms of sustainable site development, the associated building features are reduced site disturbance and soil erosion during construction, preferential use for natural drainage systems, preservation of the natural features of the site, and landscaping and building orientation which capitalize on passive heating and cooling. These features are believed to reduce development costs and on-going maintenance costs, improve marketability of the property, enhance natural appearance, result to higher sales or rents, absorption and re-tenanting, net operating income (NOI) and return on investment (ROI). Meanwhile, bracketed under water efficiency are utilization of captured rainwater for landscaping, toilet flushing, etc; treatment and reuse of excess groundwater, grey water and steam condensate; preference for low-flow fixtures and fittings and ozonation as a method of laundering; and use of closed-loop systems and other water-reduction technologies. As these features generally lower water consumption, building tenants gain from sustainable building features through lower common area maintenance (CAM) charges, whereas gross leases benefit from direct NOI. On the other hand, building features categorized under energy efficiency include the use of passive solar heating and cooling, as well as natural ventilation; reduction of artificial lighting fixtures through enhanced penetration of sunlight to the building interior; and utilization of thermally efficient envelop to reduce requirements for perimeter heating and the size of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC). The advantages from energy efficient building elements are: reduced operating costs, longer lifecycle of the building, lower development costs, improved occupant productivity, lower churn output from heating, lower turnover of tenants, and higher net income for gross leased buildings. Strategies used under indoor environmental quality include: control of sources of pollution, utilization of low-emission materials, ventilation before occupancy, improved penetration of daylight and reduction of glare, among others. Efficient use of these strategies translate to lower operating costs, higher ROI or NOI for gross leases and potential for increased ROI or NOI for net leases. It should be understood at this point, however, that although initial soft costs are significantly higher when indoor environmental quality is considered, this will be offset by gains from long term operating costs and higher ROI. Finally, strategies categorized under reduced consumption of building materials consist of: using durable products, elimination of unnecessary finishes and other products, use of salvaged or refurbished materials, adoption of design procedures focused on adaptability; and even use of building shell from buildings which have been demolished. The value of reduced consumption of new building materials generally lower construction costs and sometimes, also lowers operating and maintenance cost, which in turn lead to higher ROI or NOI. From a survey of related literature, other merits of adopting sustainable refurbishment in buildings are articulated in Baker (2009), Douglas (2006), Ebbert and Knaack (cited in Braganca, 2007), and Stevenson and Williams (2007). Baker (2009) observed that refurbishing a non-domestic building provides more options for reducing carbon emissions compared to building a new one. This equates to a lesser impact to the environment. The building materials used to create new structures require energy to be produced. Moreover, demolition also carry environmental impacts through fuel expended for the actual demolition and disposal and waste materials produced Meanwhile, Douglas (2006) recognized the rising importance of sustainability in building refurbishment in terms of utilization of environment-friendly materials and processes and improved energy efficiency. He maintained that since all buildings are inevitably bound to fail or become obsolete at some point in time, existing structures need to adapt to ever-changing government regulations and user requirements, regular wear and tear, exposure to the elements, technological advancements and the need for improved and comfortable indoor environments. The results are: improved structures allow cost-effective operation, user-and environment-friendly facilities, and a healthier indoor environment. Likewise, Ebbert and Knaack (cited in Braganca, 2007) discussed four distinct advantages of sustainable building refurbishment: (1) a chance to install new building services while keeping old installations intact for future use or disposal. (2) new installations for heating, cooling, and IT can be upgraded without much interference with normal business operations; (3) on the financial side, refurbishment provides an opportunity to shore up rental profits by offering a building with an improved design that existing and potential clients can be identified with; and (4) a sustainable refurbishment strategy allows an energy-and materials-saving alternative to demolishing and rebuilding. On a rather different perspective, Stevenson and Williams (2007) argued that the choice of demolishing buildings over refurbishment has environmental, economic and social implications. The duo observed that generally, factors such as the amount of waste generated, resources required for rebuilding, and disruption of normal community life are being overlooked. In this light, a sustainable approach to refurbishment needs to be explored. Stevenson and Williams identified the benefits of refurbishment as follows: (1) cheaper alternative to rebuilding; (2) cost-effective solution in easing up fuel burden; (3) financial savings brought about by lower service and maintenance costs; (4) enhanced existing local identity; (5) preserved existing local fabric; (6) minimized use of raw materials; (7) improved airtightness and ventilation control; and (8) reduced disruption of community life. In spite of the aforementioned advantages of sustainable refurbishment, there are negative issues being hurled against its universal adoption. One of the foremost issues which counter efforts towards the propagation of the principles of sustainable refurbishment for buildings is cost-vs.-value considerations as articulated in Ratcliffe, Stubbs and Keeping (2009). Some groups espouse the view that buildings designed for sustainability tend to significantly cost more than structures built using the conventional method. Furthermore, it was also being claimed that if the principles of sustainable refurbishment are incorporated into existing building designs, the overall cost of the procedure would significantly increase. Ratcliffe, Stubbs and Keeping (2009) however, indicated that whenever buildings are submitted for alterations or renovation, costs are always involved whether or not the changes will provide additional sustainability. In this regard, stakeholders ought to consider the advantages of adopting of sustainable refurbishment principles on top of the cost factor. Another revelation in favour of sustainable refurbishment are findings from study conducted by the Building Research Establishment [BRE] and Sweett (2007) which disproved that it costs more to build sustainable buildings. The study revealed a multiplicity of variables associated with each method of building structures, but endeavoured to retain only the most significant of these variables to come up with the main issues. Specifically, BRE and Sweett found that one of the key hindrances to the wider patronage of sustainable design and construction solutions is that this method translates to substantial additional costs. This was, however, disproved from the results of a costing analysis performed by BRE and Sweett using real cost data on a gamut of sustainability technologies and construction design solutions. Results of the costing analysis showed that sizeable improvements in the sustainability of buildings can be attained with very little extra costs involved. Other than cost, the age of buildings, particularly European buildings, also present issues which seemed to make sustainable refurbishment not a practical method of choice. Ebbert and Knaack (cited in Braganca 2007)'observed that majority of Europe buildings were erected during the period between 1960 to 1980. Thus only grade A buildings are allowed to be refurbished. However, even these grade-A structures have outdated, low level insulation installed. This results to high energy consumption, since more than three-fourths of the total power utilized in these types of structures account for heating and cooling purposes.' The third issue which prevents sustainable refurbishment principles to be widely propagated as an option for developers and contractors is the recent and seemingly over-focus on new construction over building refurbishment. For example, Douglas (2006) observed that a total of twenty (20) courses in construction management and other related subjects are being offered in UK universities, whereas only two (2) courses are being offered in building adaptation and refurbishment. Another eventuality which does not favour the use of sustainable refurbishment in buildings was brought up in Ellingham and Fawcett (2006) pertaining to some existing structures which are currently being utilized other than the original purpose of which it was designed. This situation was brought about by a combination of social, economic and environmental changes. Due to the nature of these changes, some building owners are reluctant to take the step towards refurbishment, doubting the merits of their investment in the long run. Oftentimes, for urgent concerns, building owners immediately implement their refurbishment plans. In contrast, building owners put their refurbishment plan on hold and wait until an important event, such as change of ownership or critical component failure, to offer a rationale to implement the refurbishment plan. Recent research In the midst of theoretical and practical advantages of sustainable refurbishment vis a vis its disadvantages, the construction and academic sectors actively engaged in research and development to enhance knowledge on sustainability in building refurbishment. The following discussion describes the major findings of four studies. Gaudin and Gaudin (2006) investigated six (6) refurbished buildings located throughout Europe which are part of the REVIVAL (Retrofitting for Environmental Viability Improvement of Valued Architectural Landmarks) Project. Findings revealed that all six structures, though historically and architecturally significant, provide inadequate thermal comfort. Recommendations batted for utilization of passive and mechanically assisted systems throughout the refurbishment program. The REVIVAL project provided proof that refurbishing old non-domestic buildings could be at par with newly-constructed ones in terms of energy use. Jovanovi'-Popovi','Ignjatovi',''ukovi'-Ignjatovi' and'Radivojevi' (2007) conducted a scientific survey on a typical 1950s apartment building which was part of a demonstration project for energy conscious renovation and retrofit procedure. The goal of the project was to optimize the energy performance of the apartment building through energy efficient and environmentally-friendly refurbishments. The results of the study has shown that even an old typical multi-storey apartment building can be subjected to refurbishment, specifically to reduce energy consumption using common construction techniques currently being practiced in Belgrade. However, support from local authorities, whether financial or administrative is still crucial since existing interventions lack coordination even at the grassroots level. Mickaityt', ''Zavadskas,''Kaklauskas and'Tup'nait' (2008)'developed a conceptual model for the refurbishment of sustainable public buildings and tested the model with the Vilnius Gediminas Technical University main building pollution mapping. On the basis of this preliminary model, Zavadskas, Kaklauskas, Tupenaite and Mickaityte (2008) created the Building's Refurbishment Knowledge-based Decision Support System (BR-DSS). The system consists of a database, database management system, model-base, model-base management system and a user interface. The main functions of the automated system is to present information regarding the general physical and functional state of the building and the building's envelope; compute the amount of work which needs to be carried out; reduce the energy consumption of the building; propose necessary strategies to increase air quality of air and indoor environment; and analyze the refurbishment scenarios using the inputs from the system. Implications Sustainable refurbishment is not a very recent construction design solution. Yet, ins spite of the multitude of theoretical and practical advantages of utilizing strategies grounded on the principles of sustainable building design, it has not yet covered considerable mileage in terms of the quantity of buildings refurbished based on sustainable alternatives. The general perception that new buildings designed or existing building refurbished using sustainability features cost more than their conventional counterparts is a barrier for the universal acceptance of sustainable refurbishment for buildings. Even if this perception had been proven erroneous in some studies, particularly in BRE and Sweett (2006). sustainable refurbishment is not yet a generally adopted practice. The fact that no fixed definition is provided for sustainable refurbishment or sustainability in buildings, is not a deterring factor for its global acceptance. It may be intentional on the part of the proponents of the process that no fixed definition is provided to signal its adaptability to amendments based on the dictates of the fast changing times. It may be possible, though, that this building design solution has not gained much ground in terms of patronage because there are not so many avenues to propagate its use. As singled out in Douglas (2006), building adoption refurbishment courses in the UK are outnumbered by construction management courses 20 to 2. Hence, the academe may be a factor in the rather slow absorption of this technology in Europe and in the rest of the world. Based on the literature surveyed, two practices should be significant influences in the general acceptance of sustainable refurbishment among all stakeholders. First, since building refurbishment deals mainly with existing structures, engineers, architects, surveyors, contractors and everyone involved in the construction industry should see to it that factors such as codes on fire safety, acoustic control and power requirements be explicitly incorporated into plans. Secondly, refurbishment planning should consider inputs from building inhabitants in their work or habitation environment since it is the inhabitants who will be the direct beneficiaries of refurbishment initiatives. Finally, a couple of implications may be deduced from the findings of the studies considered in this meta-analysis: (1) sustainable refurbishment is a viable method of rehabilitating structures; and (2) the emergence of information technology and the so-called knowledge society, innovative construction solutions may be developed to automate the processes involved in the sustainable refurbishment of buildings. REFERENCES Baker, N.V. 2009.'Handbook of sustainable refurbishment: non-domestic buildings. London: Earthscan. Braganca, L. ed. 2007.'Portugal SB07: Sustainable construction, materials and practices. Netherlands: IOS. Building Research Establishment [BRE] and Sweett, C. 2007.'Putting a price on sustainability. Watford, UK: Building Research Establishment.' Douglas, J. 2006.'Building adaptation. UK: Elsevier. Ellingham, I and Fawcett, W. 2006.'New generation whole-life costing. New York: Taylor and Francis. Gaudin, T. and Gaudin, G. 2006.'Sustainable Refurbishment of Large Tertiary Buildings from the Post-War - Prioritizing of Thermal Comfort in Summer'[online]. [Accessed 21st December 2009]. Available from World Wide Web http://www.revival-eu.net/docs/ Climamed%202006% 20Nov%202006.pdf Jovanovi'-Popovi', M.,'Ignjatovi', D.,''ukovi'-Ignjatovi', N.,'Radivojevi', A. 2007. Rehabilitation project of an apartment building in Belgrade, Serbia.'Spatium, 15-16, pp. 60-65. Stevenson, F. and Williams, N. 2007.'Sustainable housing design guide for Scotland. Edinburgh: Communities Scotland Mickaityt', ''A.,'Zavadskas, E.'K.,'Kaklauskas, A. and'Tup'nait', L. 2008. The concept model of sustainable buildings refurbishment.'International Journal of Strategic Property Management,''12(1), pp. 53-68.' Ratcliffe, J., Stubbs, M., and Keeping, M.'Urban planning and real estate development. 3rd'ed. Oxon, UK: Routledge. The Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991: Elizabeth II. Article 42. The Stationery Office Limited, 1991. Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A. Tupenaite, L. and Mickaityte, A. 2008. Decision-making model for sustainable buildings refurbishment: energy efficiency aspect.'In: D. Cygas and K. D. Froehner. eds.'The 7th International Conference, Environmental Engineering, Selected Papers'(vol. 2). Vilnius, LT: Technika, 'pp. 894-901. Read More