buildings Reuse, Social LCA of buildings · Social LCA of buildings Life cycle of buildings Reuse, recycling. MARIA ISABEL TOUCEDA GOMEZ-SOCIAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS

Maria Isabel [email protected]

Université Libre de Bruxelles – 4MAT

Social LCA of buildings

Life cycle of buildings

Reuse, recycling

MARIA ISABEL TOUCEDA GOMEZ- SOCIAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS

MERCREDI DE L’INFO. L'ANALYSE SOCIALE DU CYCLE DE VIE (ASCV). 9 DÉCEMBRE 2015

Life cycle of buildings

2

Use

Resource extraction

Disposal

Production

Construction

End of life

Reuse, recovery, recycling environmentally

sociallyeconomicallysustainable

Building performance

Materials

Components

Elements

Occupants

Workers



EU directives

Plan 20-20-20 → EPBD energy performance (DE 2002/91/CE, 2010/31/EU)

Cost-optimality of minimum energy performance (EU) No 244/2012

National regulations

Energy performance and renewable energy production

Voluntary framework

CEN Committee TC 350 - Sustainability of construction works

Normative framework for buildings

3



CEN TC 350 Sustainability of construction works

4

EN 16627:2015EN 16309:2014

Work program

Framework

Building

Product



Boundaries

EN 16309:2014 Methodology social assessment

5

Figure. Information modules in the life cycle of buildings. Source: EN 16309:2014



Social performance categories


6

Accessibility

Adaptability

Health and comfort

Loadings on the neighbourhood

Maintenance

Safety / security

Sourcing of materials and services*

Stakeholder Involvement*


*Not considered yet in the last version of the standard (not ready for standardisation)



List of indicators


7

Building fabric related:operative temperature;

humidity;

air velocity and distribution;

type of activities in the room;

type of users ( e.g. activities, clothing).

User and control system-relatedoperating T can be controlled [y/n]

humidity can be controlled [y/o]

air velocity and distribution can becontrolled [y/n]

Etc.

Accessibility

Adaptability

Health and comfort


Maintenance

Safety / security




Social aspects Indicators (some examples)

Thermal characteristics




List of indicators


8

Building fabric related:

Substances and particles (declared emissions or assessed concentration)

CO (ppm), CO2, Radon [Bq/m3]

Ventilation rate (e.g. l/s)

Risk of mould growth

User and control system-related

control of ventilation [y/n]

Measurement and display of CO2 level[y/n]

Measurement of humidity [y/n]

Accessibility

Adaptability

Health and comfort


Maintenance

Safety / security




Social aspects Indicators (some examples)

Characteristics of indoor air quality




Impact assessment

No valuation methods

No reference points of performance

But these could be defined by regulations, label schemes, etc.


9



Conclusions

Only the use-stage is covered

Enables measuring and describing social performances

Does not provide valuation methods, nor levels of performance.

Societal aspects are excluded (e.g. equitability)


10

Assessing socioeconomic impacts of retrofitting

Life cycle of

retrofitting

Po

lVila

do

ms

pic

.BA

TEX

Brusselshousing stock

Disposal



Context

12

Environmental targets

• Energy performance

Social cohesion

• Combating poverty

Economic growth

• Create employment, fight against social dumping

The increase of retrofitting relies on public incentives



Goal

13

Natural environment

Natural resources

Environmental LCA

+

Socioeconomic aspects

Health

Well-being & dignity

Nature,Society

“To include socioeconomic aspects in life cycle assessment methodologies to assistdecision making related to housing retrofitting”



Approach

14

Health


+

Safe & healthy working conditions

Job creation in fair conditions

World Health Org.

Social HotspotDatabase

Natural environment

Natural resources

Environmental LCANature,Society

Workers



Approach

15

Health


Natural environment

Natural resources

Environmental LCA

+Indoor air quality

Mould and adequate indoor temperatures

Economic affordability

UNEP/SETAC

WHO

Factorsleading to poverty

Nature,Society

Users



Approach

16

Health


Natural environment

Natural resources

NatureSociety

The “State”

Environmental LCA

+

Contribution to economic growth Social services



Case study - FLORAIR social housing

17

• Social housing, 60’s

• 182 households very low gross income (average 17856 €)

• Very low energy retrofitting

226.91 kWh/m2y → 29.15 kWh/m2y

• Works:

-External insulation façade panels

-New windows double glazing

-Roof: insulation + water tightness

-Ventilation system type D

“Quantify changes in sustainability due to renovation” (∆retrofit-no retrofit, 30 years)

FLORAIR I

FLORAIR IV



Boundaries of assessment

18

Quantify changes due to renovation”

(∆retrofit-no retrofit, 30 years)

HOUSING IN USENo-retrofitting

scenario

Works in situ

Sales

Transport

USE(retrofitted-no retrofitted)

30 yearsEnd of life

Repair, maintenance

Operational energyres. extraction manufacturing

products

products

products

Bac

kgro

un

d

pro

cess

es

Fore

gro

un

d p

roce

sse

s(B

elg

ium

)



Workforce involved

19

Metal products - Belgium

Metaux Mozambique – 2 ‰

54 % damage

to labour rightsand decent work

Figure. Contribution to damage to labour rights and decent work. Source: Social Hotspots database.



Working hours with low risk of damageSector Ave Wage being lower than Country’s Minimum Wage

Sector Ave Wage being lower than Country’s Non-poverty Guideline

Wages being under $2 per day 315

Child Labor in sector, Total 30

Forced Labor by Sector

Excessive working time by sector

A country lacks or does not enforce Coll Bargaining rights

A country lacks or does not enforce Freed. Of Ass. Rights

A country lacks or does not enforce the Right to Strike 5

Migrant workers are treated unfairly

Results (per household)

20

Workers

PREVIOUS RETROFIT ∆(30 years)

Safe & healthy working conditions

Fatal accidents and diseases (foreground) 1.3E-05 4.1E-05 2.8E-05 [N]

Fatal accidents and diseases (background) 0.00094 0.00113 1.8E-04 [N]

Damage to labour rights and decent work

Job creation:

Foreground proc.(BE) 104 371 267 [wh fair]

Background processes 4503 4920 416 [wh]

* wh= working hours

Damage to health

(-) 0.104 DALY

Fair job creation

+ 272 working hours

WHO- global burden of disease

Social HotspotDatabase method

DALY = Disability adjusted life years(-) is avoided damages

267 + 5




21

Users

Indoor environment

Presence of mould Yes No Yes→No

Affordability

Operating costs (PV 30y- gas, ely,wtr) -37023 -26376 10646 [€]

Operating costs / disposable income -11.4% -8.1% 3.3%

*(-) expense; (+) saved;

**PV: present value

Damage to health

(-) 0.054 DALY

Disposable income

(+) 3.32 %

PREVIOUS RETROFIT ∆


WHO methodmould - risk of asthma

>10% fuel poverty

Fuel poverty index

After retrofitting

No-retrofitting scenario

DALY = Disability adjusted life years(-) is avoided damages

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Utility costs (gas + water + electricity) / household purchasing power

operation (passive) -social Hhtype 4p

operation (no retrof.) -social Hhtype 4p

Hh type (4p)- social tenants FLORAIR

fuel poverty line∆= (-) 3.32% year 25

(+) is an improvement



The State


Investments & return (The "State")

Investment: works 0.00 34253 -34253 [€]

Repair & maintenance 1729 978 +750 [€]

VAT: works (received) 0 -2154 +2154 [€]

VAT: energy (received) -4477 -2629 -1848 [€]

VAT: maintenance (received) -98 -55 -42 [€]

Contribution to social security -102 -539 +437 [€]

Additional rent 0 -4700 +4700 [€]

Avoided costs

Aids to unemployment (avoided) -759 -2718 +1959 [€]

* (-) cost is an expense; (+) is received

22

Contribution to growth (30 y)

(-) 26142 €


Life cycle costingmethods

(-) is an expense



Six endpoint results … and now?

Exhausting data collection

Extract conclusions for similar situations

Housing typology

Household typology

Housing conditions before works

Some examples to optimize policies

Identify priorities for intervention

(households, housing typology and conditions)

Application

23



Application- case study

24

-6000

-4000

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

Natural resources

(Surplus cost [$])

sc 1 ∆30y

-0.0020

-0.0015

-0.0010

-0.0005

0.0000

0.0005

0.0010

0.0015

0.0020

Natural environment

[species*year]

sc 1 ∆30y

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Damage to human health

[DALY]

FLORAIR I&IV

-30000.00

-20000.00

-10000.00

0.00

10000.00

20000.00

30000.00

Contribution to growth

[€]

sc 1 ∆30y

-25.0%

-20.0%

-15.0%

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Purchasing power

[%]

FLORAIR I&IV

-4000.00

-3000.00

-2000.00

-1000.00

0.00

1000.00

2000.00

3000.00

4000.00

Fair working hours [wh]

sc 1 ∆30y

imp

rove

men

t

-

-

-

-

-

Social housing

Heating deprivation, mould before works

Ver low-energy retrofitting



Typologies + relevant scenarios

Application – housing stock level

25

SCENARIOS

Household

Income, tenure Previous Post-works Sourcing Degree of

intervention

Q75 Mould+Very low T Min requirem. Local Minimum

Q50 Very low T (<16ºC) Low E Conventional Complete

Q25 Mouldy app. Very low E

Social housing Heating deprivation Passive

Thermal comfort

HANKAR

scenario 0 (baseline -no retrofit) Idem

scenario 1 (as built) Q75 Mould LowE Local Complete

scenario 2 (cost-optimum) Q75 Thermal comfort LowE Local Complete

scenario 3 Q75 Thermal comfort Min req Local Complete

scenario 4 Q75 Mould LowE Conventional Complete

scenario 5 Q75 Thermal comfort LowE Conventional Complete

scenario 6 Q75 Mouldy LowE Conventional Complete

scenario 7 Q50 Mouldy LowE Local Complete

scenario 8 Q50 Thermal comfort LowE Local Complete

FLORAIR

scenario 0 (baseline -no retrofit) Idem

scenario 1 (real) social tenants Mouldy appartm very low E Local Minimum

scenario 1 bis social tenants heating deprivation Minimum

scenario 2 social tenants Thermal comfort very low E Local Minimum

scenario 3 Q25 heating deprivation very low E Local Minimum

scenario 4 Q50 heating deprivation very low E Local Minimum

scenario 5 Q25 Thermal comfort very low E Local Minimum

scenario 6 Q50 Thermal comfort very low E Local Minimum

WorksHouse conditions



Application - comparison

26

Two typologies in similar conditions

Private houshehold - income average quartile Q25

Heating deprivation, mould before works

Ver low-energy retrofitting

-6000

-4000

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

Natural resources

(Surplus cost [$])

FLORAIR I&IV

HANKAR

-0.0020

-0.0015

-0.0010

-0.0005

0.0000

0.0005

0.0010

0.0015

0.0020

Natural environment

[species*year]

FLORAIR I&IV

HANKAR

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Damage to human health

[DALY]

FLORAIR I&IV

HANKAR

-30000.00

-20000.00

-10000.00

0.00

10000.00

20000.00

30000.00


[€]

FLORAIR I&IV

HANKAR

-25.0%

-20.0%

-15.0%

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Purchasing power

[%]

FLORAIR I&IV

HANKAR

-4000.00

-3000.00

-2000.00

-1000.00

0.00

1000.00

2000.00

3000.00

4000.00


FLORAIR I&IV

HANKAR

imp

rove

men

td

amag

e in

crea

se

-

-

-

-

-



-18000

-12000

-6000

0

6000

12000

18000

Natural resources (Surplus cost [$])

sc 1 ∆30y sc 2 ∆30y

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00sc 1

∆30ysc

1bis ∆30y

sc 2 ∆30y

Damage to human health [DALY]

-40000.00

-30000.00

-20000.00

-10000.00

0.00

10000.00

20000.00

30000.00

40000.00sc

1 ∆

30

y

sc 1

bis

∆3

0y

sc 2

∆3

0y

sc 3

∆3

0y

sc 4

∆3

0y

sc 5

∆3

0y


-25.0%

-20.0%

-15.0%

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

sc 1 ∆30y

sc 3 ∆30y

sc 4 ∆30y

Purchasing power[%]

-0.0045

-0.0030

-0.0015

0.0000

0.0015

0.0030

0.0045

Natural environment [species*year]

-4000.00

-3000.00

-2000.00

-1000.00

0.00

1000.00

2000.00

3000.00

4000.00


Typologies + relevant scenarios

Application – housing stock level

27

Social housing

Q25 Q50

Mouldy Thermal

comfortNot

mouldyQ25 Q50

Appartment

Mouldy

Low-energy

Social/ Income Q25 / Q50

Appartment

Thermal comfort

Low-energy

Social/ Income Q25 / Q50

Social housing

Q25 Q50

-

-

-

-

private

private



Impacts on retrofitting are highly related to

Housing conditions before retrofitting (temperature, mould, energy)

Household income, ownership

Origin of products, materials, workforce

Necessary the monitoring of the housing stock

A better performance in one aspect implies other consequences

Conclusions

28

Decision making as a combination of objectives, thresholds, limits, ranges (e.g. fuel poverty line) based on baseline conditions

Questions and discussion

[email protected]

Life cycle of

retrofitting

Po

lVila

do

ms

pic

.BA

TEX

Brusselshousing stock

Disposal

Documents

buildings Reuse, Social LCA of buildings · Social LCA of buildings Life cycle of buildings Reuse, recycling. MARIA ISABEL TOUCEDA GOMEZ-SOCIAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS