clarifying the new interpretations of the concept of sustainable building

Sustainable Cities and Society 8 (2013) 7278

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

journa l h o me page: www.elsev ier .c

Clarify pt

UmbertoWorcester Poly

a r t i c l

Keywords:Sustainable deGreen buildingSustainable bu

builabilitainabstainanitio

ten incal ape, dom

builc asper witl of si

buildvours

the domains of sustainability. 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introdu

This papthe built enDespite theterminologerature, fewmeanwhilethe availabuseless becPrasad, 199environmenconcept of s

A good able develodenitions not difcultment needsbriey recameanings odiscussed wdevelopme

Tel.: +1 50E-mail add

2210-6707/$ http://dx.doi.oction

er was born from the difculty dening sustainability invironment and hence, identifying sustainable buildings.

absence of a largely shared denition, the use of they sustainable building is rapidly increasing. In the lit-

denitions of sustainable building have been proposed,, journals and books use this term daily. Unfortunately,le denitions seem incomplete and often prove to beause they are unclear and biased (Cole, 2004; Fowke &6). This paper discusses sustainability across the builtt in order to help clarify the new interpretations of theustainable building.

starting point for this study is the concept of sustain-pment. Although it is an often abused term and manyhave been given of it in the last three decades, it is

to recognize that the concept of sustainable develop- clarication (Basiago, 1995; Martens, 2006). This paperlls the ongoing discussion about the practical and newf sustainable development. Several papers have recentlyhat is sustainable (Martens, 2006), what sustainable

nt means (Hueting & Reijnders, 2004) and how it can be

8 831 6545; fax: +1 508 831 6545.ress: [email protected]

operationalized and identied (Hopwood, Mellor, & OBrien, 2005).Through this paper, the author hopes to bring the ongoing debateabout sustainable development into the building sector in order tohelp to reconceptualise what a sustainable building is.

The building sector is receiving increasing attention in world-wide policies for sustainable development (UNEP-SBCI, 2009). Thisattention to the building sector arises from its energy consumptionand GHG emissions which, in developed countries, represent 30and 40% of the total quantities respectively (IPCC, 2007; UNEP-SBCI,2009). Eurostat (2011) has recently shown that the consumptionin the household sector is larger than the consumption in thetransport or industrial sector. Moreover, the data of the EnergyInformation Administration show that the energy consumption andGHG emissions in buildings are increasing at a higher rate than inthe other sectors (Akashi & Hanaoka, 2012; EIA, 2012). Accordingto the IPCC (2007), GHG emissions from buildings may increaseup to 15.6 GtCO2-eq/y in 2030, whereas the building sector alonecould save almost 6 Gt CO2-eq/y. The increasing relevance of thebuilding sector in undeveloped and developing countries justiesgreater attention towards sustainable buildings too. In fact, in thesecountries, the building sector is showing high growth rates: as amatter of fact, by 2015 more than half of the building stock of Chinawill have been constructed during the previous 15 years (UNEP,2003).

The previous data demonstrate the importance that sustainablebuildings could have for sustainable development (Sev, 2009), and

see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.rg/10.1016/j.scs.2013.01.008ing the new interpretations of the conce

Berardi

technic Institute, CEE, 100 Institute Road, Worcester, 01609, United States

e i n f o

velopment

ilding

a b s t r a c t

A review of denitions of sustainabledifculties exist in identifying sustainrecent evolution of the concept of sustconsidered, before analysing what suconstrains which prevent a simple defor sustainability assessments are ofstrong environmental and technologiconcept of sustainability on time, scalfor a better denition of a sustainableshould be given to social and economibuilding and its surroundings, togetheto dene the sustainability at the levescales. Finally, this paper shows that aits metabolism and by doing this it faom/ locate /scs

of sustainable building

ding shows that the terminology needs clarication as manyy in the built environment. The study starts by examining thele development. Latest interpretations of this terminology arebility means in the built environment. This paper focuses onn and identication of what is a sustainable building. Systemssufcient to recognize sustainability of buildings given theproach of these systems. In particular, the dependence of theain and social uncertainties is discussed. Some requirements

ding are indicated. This paper shows that a greater attentioncts. The importance of the cross-scale relationships between ah the ever changing ows between them, limits the possibilityngle building, and it encourages looking at larger and crossinging is sustainable if it contributes to the sustainability through

a regenerative resilience of the built environment among all

U. Berardi / Sustainable Cities and Society 8 (2013) 7278 73

hence, they justify the necessity for ways to identify sustainablebuildings (Parr & Zaretsky, 2010).

This paper is structured in six sections: Section 2 reviews recentinterpretations of the concept of sustainable development, Sec-tion 3 discthe contextcusses the building. Setainable buthis work.

2. Recent i

Sustainacept worldw(Hopwood this term, ction has beof the possi(Robinson,

The concIts theoreticto Growth1972). The Uyear, was ttainability and a seriesment of theyears later,tainable defuture gene1974). Howthe Brundtltainable dethe presenttions to meeof sustainabcially in recYanarella &cial deni2006). Parahave also bby the Unitbeen repres2007).

Looking sustainableed some pincludes seand it has s

The timtional approa long termthe future. emerges (Kgest adoptiprocesses toevolves contive exibiltime (Kemp

The secodependenceis locally spa universal the possible

because the interconnections of systems, people and markets coun-teract a local approach. In fact it is evident that the impact of everyaction spans from a local scale up to a global one, so that sustaina-bility requires continuous evaluation at several scale levels (Daly,

thirddividironer, ilturaood cticagmentand

Thisen bironeral , &

ed foned

cratiablecan trarion bnmen

& Meveloainabion angeies anniumentlyabiliill be005)on to, Mat susn di

fouetatiity of un

the t musionferenover

thro, 20s soc

sensationdablevidabilive asus, tive, Yanaanint of lileausses the role that sustainable buildings can have in of sustainable development, whereas Section 4 dis-factors of uncertainty for the dening of a sustainablection 5 proposes identiable characteristics for a sus-ilding and, nally, Section 6 summarizes the ndings of

nterpretations of sustainable development

ble development is not a single and well dened con-ide. At least one hundred denitions have been given

et al., 2005). New meanings are continually added tolouding its concept in a way that every time a deni-en formulated, it has always been incomplete as someble meanings of sustainable development were left out2004).ept of sustainable development goes back to the 1970s.al framework evolved after the publication The Limits

by the Club of Rome (Meadows, Randers, & Meadows,N Conference on the Human Environment, in the same

he rst major international gathering to discuss sus-on a global scale. It created considerable momentum

of recommendations which later led to the establish- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). A few

the UNEP Symposium discussed the meaning of sus-velopment and stressed the importance of consideringrations and long term perspective (Cocoyoc Declaration,ever, the most famous denition was given in 1987 byand Commission (WCED, 1987) which stated that sus-velopment is development which meets the needs of

without compromising the ability of future genera-t their own needs. Although the Brundtland denitionility has received many different interpretations, espe-ent years (Basiago, 1995; Steurer & Hametner, in press;

Bartilow, 2000), a resistance to determining an of-tion has emerged (Fowke & Prasad, 1996; Martens,doxically, sustainability and sustainable developmenteen recognized to suffer from denitional ambiguityed Nations, but the diversity of denitions has oftenented as a point of strength of these concepts (IPCC,

at the common denominator of the denitions of development, Grosskurth and Rotmans (2005) identi-eculiarities and uncertainties: it is time dependent, itveral levels of space (and scale), multiple dimensionsocial dependencies.e dependence, already presented in the intergenera-ach of the Brundtland denition, requires us to consider

perspective. This raises the question of how far intoIn fact, the farther in time we go, the more uncertaintyemp & Martens, 2007). Bagheri and Hjorth (2007) sug-ng a dynamic approach which considers transformablewards sustainability as it cannot be a xed goal, but ittinually. In this sense, sustainability requires an adap-ity according to the available knowledge at any given, Parto, & Gibson, 2005; Walker & Salt, 2006).nd aspect of the concept of sustainability regards spatial. Brand and Karvonen (2007) argue that sustainabilityecic, and more a matter of local interpretation thangoal. The local perspective opens the discussion about

boundaries of the system which has to be sustainable,

1996).The

can be the envHowevthe cu(Hopwthe prahas fraunders2000).has oftthe envout sevKoedamcriticizcondemtechnosustainwhich the cona decisenviroKemp,able Dof sustsideratThis chcountrMillenhas recsustaingies wet al., 2attentiFinallying thabetwee

Theinterprnecesstance oshownaccounmon vithe difmany gmainly(DEFRAbility iIn thisexpectunavoi

As sustainobjecticonsenas rela2006; the meconcepthe Ga aspect of sustainability regards the domains in which ited. The concept of sustainability has been categorized inmental, social and economic dimensions (WCED, 1987).ncreasing pressure towards an explicit recognition ofl and political dimensions has recently been recordedet al., 2005; Vallance, Perkins, & Dixon, 2011). Despitel scope, the conceptualization in different dimensionsted the concept of sustainability leading to several mis-ings (Williams & Millington, 2004; Yanarella & Bartilow,

division has also been criticized because sustainabilityeen considered and evaluated exclusively according tomental dimension (Hueting & Reijnders, 2004), leavingaspects of sustainability (Hug, Waas, Dahdouh-Guebas,Block, 2012). In fact, the eco-centred approach has beenr being elitist and insufciently democratic. Roe (1998)

it as a version of managerialism that perpetuates ac control which is antisocial because it tries to consider

development as a scientic blueprint the contents ofbe determined by environmental scientists alone. Ony, what sustainable development means is more oftenetween several possibilities which also involves non-tal aspects (Hajer, 1995; van Zeijl-Rozema, Crvers,artens, 2008). The 2002 World Summit on Sustain-pment in Johannesburg gave a shift in the perceptionle development towards a more comprehensive con-

of social and economic dimensions of development. was driven by the emerging needs of the developingd was strongly inuenced by the discussion to reach the

Development Goals. However, a too optimistic view interpreted economic growth as a possible solution toty goals being condent that innovations and technolo-

able to generate a more sustainable world (Hopwood. The limits of this approach have recently increased thewards the social sustainability (Vallance et al., 2011).

rtens (2006) refused the division into domains afrm-tainable development lies precisely in the interrelationsmensions.rth peculiarity of sustainability regards the multipleons of the concept by different people. In fact, thef considering different points of view requires accep-certainty and differences. Sustainable development hasneed for a pluralistic approach which has to take intoltiple actors. This is the only way to create a com-

of sustainable development, minimizing trade-offs andt perceptions of the stakeholders. According to this,nments have recently started measuring sustainabilityugh the quality of life and the well-being of citizens11). McCool and Stankey (2004) stress that sustaina-ially related, and any denition needs to be cultural.e, the participation of the people and their differents and interpretations of sustainable development aree (Albino & Berardi, 2012).ent from previous discussions, many denitions ofty are possible. In the past, it was considered annd clear concept based on scientic evidence andwhereas recently, it has more often been reinterpretedsocially rooted and contextually dependent (Martens,rella & Bartilow, 2000). The process of revision ofg of sustainability has recently led to systemize thesustainability science (Kates et al., 2001), to overcomen and technocratic view of the world and to accept

74 U. Berardi / Sustainable Cities and Society 8 (2013) 7278

uncertain and participative processes of interpretations (Kemp &Martens, 2007; Miller, 2012).

Given the ambiguity and uncertainty, the concept of sustaina-bility is continually revised (Buter & Van Raan, 2012). For example,a worldwidferent dimeTogether weral levels oeconomist have distingbility moveexchange bcussion, Kenot be relatobject. In fathe ideationuse and theof the conceative point oand rigid stasection, theof sustainab

3. Context

DifcultMeasuremeassessmentcommon fr2012; Coletributed to sustainabiliassess the sa building way whichmany limitstheir evaluaing, and it iperspectivement methoa building treecting a& Monno, 2

To undehow sustainBown (199able buildinrepresents ciples and this denitin the use othe health a2003; EPA, GHG emissassess susta

This brietal impactsthis approathe concepenvironmenlast centuryof an ecoloGreen buildgrids and mcrisis which

regulations to limit the energy consumption of buildings (Berardi,in press). As a result, energy consumption became a de facto mea-surement for the sustainability of a building. Still now, energyperformance is the most used parameter to assess the sustaina-

f a bgs ar

by teen b

le 1 gs, bary, tmenhis mmenil a feoperteria

ted aat sung teand tainasides, anildin

eing withage i

Thisntal d (20g mt af

-looplso psign

in ationctiveaturen thencepctiveith n

sidertly, aned

ilt en

tors

his se a sust then to

me u

evaorizoabili

This thanl wie discussion is currently underway to reconnect the dif-nsions in a more balanced perspective (Martens, 2006).ith this an ongoing discussion is focusing on the sev-f sustainability. On the basis of the pioneer work of theHerman Daly (1996), Williams and Millington (2004)uished strong and weak sustainability. Strong sustaina-s from the belief that it is not possible to accept anetween environment and economy. Following this dis-mp (2010) stated that the sustainable attribute mayed to technology and cannot be used as a label for anct, an object cannot be evaluated independently from

and production processes, the way and intensity of its dismantling policies. Finally, the recent interpretationspt have shown that sustainability is better used as a rel-f view for evaluations in a long term path than as a xedtus which is considered in a categorical way. In the next

possible contextualization of the recent interpretationsility in the building sector are discussed.

ualizing sustainability in sustainable buildings

ies have always existed in dening sustainable building.nt tools have recently been offered by sustainability

systems which, although several differences, share aamework of what is a sustainable building (Berardi,, 2012). Through the years, these systems have con-increase the awareness about criteria and objectives ofty, and they have become a framework of reference toustainability of buildings. According to these systemsis sustainable if it is built in an ecologically oriented

reduces its impact over the environment. However, have recently showed in these systems (Berardi, 2011):tion is limited to the physical boundaries of the build-s mainly (or only) interpreted from the environmental

(ISO 15392, 2008). Consequently, sustainability assess-ds have been accused of reduction the sustainability ofo the functioning of individual environmental criterian idea of a building as a consumer of resources (Conte012).rstand the limits of this approach it is useful to traceability has been dened in the building sector. Hill and

7) discussed the environmental principles in sustain-gs. According to these, a building is sustainable if it

a healthy built environment, based on ecological prin-resource efciency (Kibert, 1994). By breaking downion, a sustainable building has to have high efciencyf energy, water and materials, and reduced impacts onnd the environment throughout its life-cycle (Cassidy,2008). In this line, reduced energy consumptions andions have often been considered the parameters toinable buildings (Lowe, 2007).f review shows that a high attention to the environmen-

of buildings has generally been considered. However,ch had already emerged before and independently fromt of sustainable development. In fact, the attention totally responsible building started in the middle of the

when several communities, driven by the ambitiongical world, advocated green buildings (Kibert, 2012).ings were required to be disconnected from the serviceade of natural materials. A few years later, the energy

followed the embargo by OPEC led to the promotion of

bility obuildinshowning, gr2008).

Tabbuildinsummrequireings. Trequire

Untat the ing maextracness thin a locradle for sus

Conimpactable buwith bfor useencour2011).ronme

ReebuildinishmenclosedReed ative denatureintegraperspewith nbility iThis coperspeows wbe consequenis desigthe bu

4. Fac

In ttion oflooks arelatio

4.1. Ti

Thetime hsustaincycle. longerintervauilding (Berardi, 2012; Cole, 2004). In fact, sustainablee often confused with energy efcient buildings, as it ishe interchangeable use of the terms sustainable build-uilding and high performance building in the U.S. (EPA,

contrasts the major issues of green and sustainabley adapting information provided in UNEP (2003). Inhe main differences consist of the economic and socialts of the sustainability, applicable to sustainable build-eans that sustainable buildings at least enlarge the

ts and dimensions of sustainability.w years ago, the sustainability of buildings only lookedational life of buildings and at the genesis of build-ls. However, given that 70% of all the materials everre in the built environment (Kibert, 2007), the aware-stainability of buildings has to consider the materialsrm perspective is increasing. In this sense, cradle-to-end-of-life approaches have increasingly been adoptedbility evaluations (McDonough & Braungart, 2002).ring the request for long-term evaluations, multi-scaled multi-domain criteria, a new paradigm of sustain-gs is emerging. According to this, a building together

designed and operated to match the appropriate tness minimum environmental impact, must contribute tomprovements towards a strong sustainability (Berardi,

represents a signicant evolution from the simple envi-approach.07) has described the necessity to consider and designaterials as biological nutrients which provide nour-ter use and circulate through the worlds systems in

cycles of production, recovery and re-manufacture.roposed shifting from green design towards a regenera-

which considers the evolution of the building within systemic way. The regenerative design requires the

of material and functional attributes in an integrative where systemic thinking and a reconciled partnership

have to replace the technocratic approach to sustaina- built environment (Cole, 2012; du Plessis & Cole, 2011).t of a sustainable building exceeds the environmental

and looks at the building as a live system with dynamicature (Reed, 2007). This means that the building cannoted as a simple consumer of resources of the planet. Con-

sustainable building should be an active entity which to help a metabolism of human beings that regeneratesvironment within the natural capital.

of uncertainty in dening sustainable buildings

ction, a few factors of uncertainty concerning the deni-tainable building are discussed. In particular, the section

uncertainty of the concept of sustainable building intime, site, domain and people-related factors.

ncertainty

luation of sustainability is always carried out with onen and at one time. In Section 3 it was shown thatty of buildings requires consideration of the whole life-is difcult to predict because buildings can exist much

expected (du Plessis & Cole, 2011). Regarding the timethin which the evaluation of sustainability is done, it


Table 1Major issues in green and sustainable buildings, adapted from UNEP (2003).

Major issues of the building performances Green building Sustainable building

Consumption of non-renewable resources x xWater consuMaterials coLand use Impacts on sUrban and pGreenhouseSolid waste Indoor well-Longevity, aOperations aFacilities maSocial issuesEconomic coCultural per

should be rcept which evaluation. moment ca

Considerbuilding duadaptabilitya sustainabrequiremenings requireBuildings aadaptationsable buildinrecalls the of the builtas the abilitimpacts (Wing attentiocapacity to ing should by adapting

4.2. Scale u

The depethe spatial ssustainabiliof the requto considerhood and co2007). In faings can bewith its envrelated to eis difcult trelates to thto a technopromoted fthe same wskyscraper

The impsurroundinsustainabili(Berardi, inthe surrounpublic buildaspects of

ionsg leveed tno, 2

unceevalun a .

mai

imps incg pobilitycial dof thay tothe inom

direceds (

contic s

able

lly, rns (Mg is e inte

cial umption xnsumption x

x ite ecology x lanning issues (x)

gas emissions x and liquid efuents x being: air quality, lighting, acoustics (x)daptability, exibility nd maintenancenagement

(access, education, inclusion, cohesion) nsiderations ception and inspiration

ecognized that sustainability is a time dependent con-depends on the knowledge available at the time of theConsequently, what is considered sustainable at onen be assesses as unsustainable in another.ing the several adaptations which can occur to aring its life cycle, paradigms such as exibility and

have recently emerged as fundamental aspects forle building that needs to easily accommodate newts (Parr & Zaretsky, 2010). Sustainability of build-s considering requirements and functions dynamically.re ever-changing and are characterized by continuous

according to unpredictable patterns so that a sustain-g must be able to accommodate different changes. Thiscontribution of sustainable buildings to the resilience

environment (Cole, 2012). The resilience was denedy to resist to changes brought by external and internalalker & Salt, 2006). This concept is receiving an increas-n for sustainability because it considers the long termsustain changes (Edwards, 2010). A sustainable build-hence increase the resilience of the built environment

to the metabolism of its context.

ncertainty

ndence of sustainability on the built environment fromcale of evaluation has often been considered in tools forty assessments (Berardi, 2012). Regional adaptationsirements of sustainable building have been proposed

the connections of a building within its neighbour-mmunity, although often in an insufcient way (Kibert,ct, although a general framework for sustainable build-

drawn at a regional level, the interaction of a building

discussbuildinto exc& Monmakesbility betweeby case

4.3. Do

Thebility ibuildininevitaand sotainty

A wing is The ecoand intial neon theeconomsustaincycles.

Finadomaibuildinand th

4.4. So

ironment makes the sustainable attribute specicallyach building. This means that a sustainable buildingo be dened in absolute terms. In a certain way, thise idea that the sustainable attribute cannot be appliedlogy (Kemp, 2010). In fact, if an ecological product isar from its production site, it becomes unsustainable inay as it would be difcult to consider a highly efcientbuilt in the desert as sustainable.ortance of the interaction of the building with itsg environment has also increasingly been recognized inty assessment systems at the scale of neighbourhoods

press). In fact, the interconnections of a building withding infrastructure (public transportation, workplace,ings) are more and more recognized as unavoidablea sustainable building (Berardi, 2011). The previous

The mosthe social odifferent wbuildings gable requirBrown, 201ent points they make able buildin2011; Parr

Numerohave generable livelihattempts hxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

have shown the limits of evaluating sustainability at ael and they ask for cross-scales evaluations which havehe boundaries of the building (Berardi, 2011; Conte012). In fact, the spatial dependence of sustainabilityrtain which is the most appropriate scale in sustaina-ations and the boundaries of the inter-connectionsbuilding and its surroundings should be adapted case

n uncertainty

ortance of considering all the dimensions of sustaina-reasingly emerging with the diffusion of sustainablelicies in less developed and developing countries. The

of considering the different meanings of the economicimensions in different countries increases the uncer-

e sustainable label (UNEP-SBCI, 2009). highlight the domain uncertainty of sustainable build-dentication of an economically sustainable building.ic domain implies the affordability to support the directt costs of the building, without neglecting other essen-Son, Kim, Chong, & Chou, 2011). This requisite dependsext and people and also recalls the time uncertainty ofustainability. In fact, a change in what is an economically

choice in buildings is possible according to economic

ecalling the critics to the division of sustainability intoartens, 2006), also for the identication of sustainablemore and more necessary to consider all the domainsrrelations between dimensions.

ncertaintyt ignored dimension of the concept of sustainability isne. People perceive a building, its impact and effects inays. This is a constraint on the spread of sustainableiven the difculty of establishing common sustain-ements between people (Dempsey, Bramley, Power, &1). The differences between stakeholders imply differ-of view in sustainability priorities, and consequently,the identication and the characteristics of a sustain-g dependent on the point of view (du Plessis & Cole,

& Zaretsky, 2010).us attempts at dening the social aspects of a buildingally considered concepts as quality of life or sustain-ood (Dempsey et al., 2011; Vallance et al., 2011). Theseave increased the uncertainty of social sustainability.


The importance for a building to contribute in creating a senseof community is surely an important requirement of sustain-able building. However, the practical meaning and the forms toprove these aspects remain uncertain. As discussed previously,the relativiacter to thesocial depebe addressestakeholderbility (Mofwith knowbility emer2007).

5. The iden

The discis a broad cmake it an the concept

Af Kempa doubt abosense. The enlarging thin order to crounding sia better unbility. In facof sustainabuilding, asuation.

The socitigated topibuilding whDempsey et

adhere toply chain

provide pensure e

conserve integrate

access to

Returninbuildings, itbuilding canronmental of a commuA sustainabheritage issas well as shas to consmental heasocial functbuilding frothis encoura sustainabobjectives fmust hence

CIB has ings whichConferenceto this newtainable bu

Table 2Principles of the Conseil International du Btiment for sustainable building (CIB,2010).

Principles for sustainable buildingly theinual stic aponsiblve almeet ectfulnershomplestruc

suburesigntructiiderin

phase its eainingiremectionver ecs of opide soainabl

as a mld beealthde inmal, vitions

veryonser-frormanlable ferstan

shoul adapttegy. The building has to allow adaptation by changing performance

functionality requirements, in accordance with new constraints.

en these new principles and other recent requirementstainable building, such as the principles reported in theable by Design Declaration of the International Union ofcts (UIA, 2009) suggests that a new common vision ofable building is emerging.marizing these recent interpretations, a sustainable build-

n be dened as a healthy facility designed and built in ato-grave resource-efcient manner, using ecological princi-cial equity, and life-cycle quality value, and which promotes

of sustainable community. According to this, a sustainableg should increase:

and for safe building, exibility, market and economic value;ralization of environmental impacts by including its contextits regeneration;an well being, occupants satisfaction and stakeholderss;l equity, aesthetics improvements, and preservation of cul-

values.

clusions

s paper has discussed factors of uncertainty and new inter-ons in identifying a sustainable building. The evolution ofncept of sustainable development suggested that a reec-

the term sustainable building is necessary. The paper hased the most recent interpretations of the concept of sustain-velopment and has tried to show how these can inuencentication of a sustainable building. Later, the paper hasty of the concept of sustainability gives a social char- meaning of sustainable. From this emerges that thendence of sustainability in the building sector couldd through a participative process in which differents express and contribute with their idea of sustaina-fat & Kohler, 2008). This requires a social contextledge sharing between individuals, where sustaina-ges through participative decisions (Bagheri & Hjorth,

tication of a sustainable building

ussion in Section 3 has shown that a sustainable buildingoncept. Section 4 then looked at a few aspects whichuncertain and relative term. This section tries to clarify

of sustainable building. (2010) stated a sustainable technology does not exist,ut the application of the attribute to a building makesdependence on scale has shown the importance ofe spatial boundaries in the evaluation of sustainabilityonsider the connections between a building and its sur-te. Consequently, the community can often representit of analysis for a complete evaluation of sustaina-t, it allows better evaluations of the cross-scale effectsbility. Moreover, many requirements of a sustainable

its social dimension may require a larger scale of eval-

al aspects of a sustainable building are still rarely inves-c. As a point of reference, it is possible to afrm that aich encourages social sustainability should (Chiu, 2002;

al., 2011; Parr & Zaretsky, 2010):

ethical standards by ethical trading throughout the sup-and by providing safe and healthy work environments;lace that meets needs with a mix of tenure types andxibility wherever possible;local heritage and culture;the building in the local context also guaranteeinglocal infrastructure and services.

g to the distinction between green and sustainable is possible to agree that if an environmentally friendly

be realized almost everywhere by minimizing its envi-impact, a sustainable building asks for more. The sensenity becomes fundamental for a sustainable building.le building should increase social equity, cultural andues, traditions, human health, and social infrastructure,afe and healthy environments. A sustainable buildingider the impact of the building on the physical andlth of the occupiers too. For example, psychological andions of a residential building shift the meaning of them that of a physical living place to that of a home:

ages considering the social network of community thatle building must contribute to create. Strategies andor addressing sustainability in the built environment

be locally valid.recently reinterpreted the visions of sustainable build-

was originally adopted after the First International on Sustainable Construction (Kibert, 1994). According

interpretation (CIB, 2010), ten new principles for a sus-ilding have been declared (Table 2). The convergence

1. Appcontholiresp

2. Invocan resppart

3. Be cinfraand

4. Be dconsconseach

5. Havremrequredu

6. Delicost

7. Provsustseenshou

8. Be hincluthercondto e

9. Be uperfavaiundand

10. Bestraand

betwefor susSustainArchitesustain

Suming cacradle-ples, soa sensebuildin

dem neut

and hum

right socia

tural

6. Con

Thipretatithe cotion onreviewable dethe ide general principles of sustainability, and hence, promoteimprovement, equity, global thinking and local action, aproach, long-term consideration of precaution and risk,ility, and transparency.l interested parties through a collaborative approach, so that itoccupants needs individually and collectively, and be

of and consistent with collective social needs throughip in design, construction, and maintenance processes.tely integrated into the relevant local plans and

ture, and connect into the existing services, networks, urbanban grids, in order to improve stakeholder satisfaction.ed from a life-cycle perspective, covering planning, design,on, operation and maintenance, renovation and end of life,g all other phases during the evaluation of performance ate.nvironmental impact minimized over the (estimated or) service life. This takes into consideration regional and globalnts, resource efciency together with waste and emissions.onomic value over time, taking into account future life-cycleeration, maintenance, refurbishment and disposal.cial and cultural value over time and for all the people. Ae building must provide a sense of place for its occupants, beeans of work status improvement for the workers, and

related and integrated into the local culture.y, comfortable, safe and accessible for all. Health criteriadoor air quality whereas comfort criteria include acoustic,isual and olfactory comfort. It must allow safe working

during its construction and service life, and full accessibilitye in the use of building facilities.iendly, simple and cost effective in operation, with measurableces over time. Operation and maintenance rules must beor both operators and occupants at any time. People shouldd the philosophy and the strategies included in the buildingd be incentivized to behave sustainably.able throughout the service life and with an end-of-life


indicated a few requirements for the identication of a sustainablebuilding. In particular, the importance of considering a sustainablebuilding as a path characterized by constraints and uncertaintieshas shown that an agreed denition of sustainable building is dif-cult becauseuncertaintieThese factouncertaintylabel given

Howeveto be givenimportanceand neighbobility. Finallhas to promtral environ

Future retainable buhelp clarifydened as s

References

Akashi, O., & Hreduction Sustainabi

Albino, V., & Becase studie

Bagheri, A., & shift towaDevelopme

Basiago, A. D. (3(3), 155

Berardi, U. (20upscaling tand Urban

Berardi, U. (20tems and r

Berardi, U. SusCivil Engin

Brand, R., & Kaledges for3(1), 213

Buter, R. K., highly citehttp://dx.d

Cassidy, R. constructiohttp://ww

Chiu, R. (2002tive region155162.

CIB, Conseil Inbuildings. SEU. Rotter

Cocoyoc Declaopment (UNo. 2. Dag

Cole, R. J. (200& Informat

Cole, R. J. (2012Building Re

Conte, E., & MintegratedReview, 34

Daly, H. E. (199Beacon Pre

DEFRA, Dep(2011). ments vhttp://sd.d

Dempsey, N., of sustainDevelopme

du Plessis, C., &Research &

Edwards, A. R.Gabriola Is

Energy Information Administration. (2012). Annual energy outlook 2012. U.S. EnergyInformation Administration. Available at:. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/

EPA, Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Green Building Strategy Denes green building and explains EPAs strategic role in facilitating themainstream adoption of effective green building practices. Available at:

.epa.. (201://eppR., & Pt: Dilerth, J.,lopm, 135. (199

ainabl& Bowtructid, B., rent a, R., &er con260.

., Waourse-ing ://dx.dtergovers, cliersity2 (20

., Clarkce. Sc. (201., & Ma

is suby, 3(2., Parting fro2), 12. J. (19l conf. J. (20forma. J. (2

oken: W (2007t. Buil, P. (20licy, 2

S. F., rtuni), 294ugh, Ws, D. erse B

T. pectiv://dx.dS., & aleco& Zarancis.

(2007mation, J. (2ogical 1998).

develo(2009lopm173.

Kim, Cent ina. Sus

R., & egies:://dx.d(2009://wwnitedtructioCI, Uate Iners. Pa, S., Pcatio time, space, domains and social constrains increase thes in identifying sustainability in the built environment.

rs show that sustainability implies a consistent rate of and suggest that it is more a transition path than theto a building.r, the paper has shown that a greater importance has

to the social and economic context of a building. The of considering the relationships between the buildingurhood encourages cross-scale evaluations of sustaina-y, the paper has established that a sustainable buildingote in a long term perspective its economic value, a neu-mental impact, human satisfaction and social equity.search should show through real case studies how sus-ildings are promoted, realized and managed. This willing the criteria which buildings have to meet to beustainable.

anaoka, T. (2012). Technological feasibility and costs of achieving a 50%of global GHG emissions by 2050: Mid- and long-term perspectives.lity Science, 7(2), 139156.rardi, U. (2012). Green buildings and organizational changes in Italians. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(6), 387400.

Hjorth, P. (2007). Planning for sustainable development: A paradigmrds a process-based approach sustainable development. Sustainablent, 15(2), 8396.1995). Methods of dening sustainability. Sustainable Development,162.11). Beyond sustainability assessment systems: Upgrading topics byhe assessment. International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology

Development, 2(4), 276282.12). Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: Rating sys-ated buildings. Sustainable Development, 20(6), 411424.tainability assessment of urban communities through rating systems.eering and Environmental Systems, in press.rvonen, A. (2007). The ecosystem of expertise: Complementary know

sustainable development. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy,1.& Van Raan, A. F. J. (2012). Identication and analysis of thed knowledge base of sustainability science. Sustainability Science,oi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0185-1(2003). White paper on sustainability. Building design &n (p. 11). Reed Business Information. Available at:w.usgbc.org/Docs/Resources/BDCWhitePaperR2.pdf). Social equity in housing in the Hong Kong special administra-: A social sustainability perspective. Sustainable Development, 10(3),

ternational du Btiment. (2010). Towards sustainable and smart-ecoummary report on the EU-funded project smart-ECO buildings in thedam: CIB.ration. (1974). UNEP/United Nations Conference on Trade and Devel-NCTAD) symposium in Cocoyoc, published in Development Dialogue,

Hammarskjld Foundation, Uppsala.4). Changing context for environmental knowledge. Building Researchion, 32(2), 91109.). Regenerative design and development: Current theory and practice.search & Information, 40(1), 16.onno, V. (2012). Beyond the buildingcentric approach: A vision for an

evaluation of sustainable buildings. Environmental Impact Assessment(4), 3140.6). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Boston:ss.artment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.Mainstreaming sustainable development The Govern-ision and what this means in practice. Available at:efra.gov.uk/documents/mainstreaming-sustainable-development.pdfBramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimensionable development: Dening urban social sustainability. Sustainablent, 19(5), 289300.

Cole, R. J. (2011). Motivating change: Shifting the paradigm. Building Information, 39(5), 436449.

(2010). Thriving beyond sustainability: Pathways to a resilient society.land: New Society Publishers.

wwwEurostat

httpFowke,

menGrossku

deve7(1)

Hajer, Msust

Hill, R., Cons

Hopwoodiffe

Huetingprop249

Hug, Jdiscprethttp

IPCC, InmakUniv

ISO 1539Kates, R

scienKemp, RKemp, R

thatPolic

Kemp, RMov8(1

Kibert, Ctiona

Kibert, C& In

Kibert, CHob

Lowe, R.men

Martens& Po

McCool,oppo33(3

McDonoMeadow

UnivMiller,

pershttp

Moffat, soci

Parr, A., & Fr

Reed, B.Infor

RobinsoEcol

Roe, E. (able

Sev, A. deve161

Son, H., opmKore

Steurer,strathttp

UIA. http

UNEP, Ucons

UNEP-SBClimmak

Vallanceclarigov/greenbuilding/pubs/greenbuilding strategy nov08.pdf1). Energy consumption by sector in European countries. Available at:.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/rasad, D. (1996). Sustainable development, cities and local govern-mmas and denitions. Australian Planner, 33(2), 6166.

& Rotmans, J. (2005). The scene model: Getting a grip on sustainableent in policy making. Environment, Development and Sustainability,151.5). Politics on the move: The democratic control of the design ofe technologies. Knowledge and Policy, 8(4), 2629.n, P. (1997). Sustainable construction: Principles and a framework.on Management and Economics, 15(3), 223239.Mellor, M., & OBrien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mappingpproaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 3852.

Reijnders, L. (2004). Broad sustainability contra sustainability: Thestruction of sustainability indicators. Ecological Economics, 50(34),

as, T., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Koedam, N., & Block, T. (2012). Aanalytical perspective on sustainability assessment: Inter-sustainable development in practice. Sustainability Science,oi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0184-2ernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Summary for policy-mate change, IPCC WG1 fourth assessment report. New York: Cambridge

Press.08). Sustainability in building construction General principles., W., Corell, R., Hall, J., Jaeger, C., Lowe, I., et al. (2001). Sustainabilityience, 292(5517), 641642.0). Sustainable technologies do not exist!. Ekonomiaz, 75(3), 217.rtens, P. (2007). Sustainable development: How to manage somethingjective and never can be achieved? Sustainability: Science, Practice, &), 514.o, S., & Gibson, R. B. (2005). Governance for sustainable development:m theory to practice. International Journal of Sustainable Development,30.94). Principles of sustainable construction. In Proc. of the rst interna-erence on sustainable construction Tampa, FL, USA, (pp. 19).07). The next generation of sustainable construction. Building Researchtion, 35(6), 595601.012). Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery.iley,

). Addressing the challenges of climate change for the built environ-ding Research & Information, 35(4), 343350.06). Sustainability: Science or ction? Sustainability: Science, Practice,(1), 3641.& Stankey, G. H. (2004). Indicators of sustainability: Challenges andties at the interface of science and policy. Environmental Management,305.., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle. New York: North Point.

J., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. L. (1972). Limits to growth. New York:ooks.(2012). Constructing sustainability science: Emerging

es and research trajectories. Sustainability Science,oi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0180-6Kohler, N. (2008). Conceptualizing the built environment as alogical system. Building Research & Information, 36(3), 248268.etsky, M. (2010). New directions in sustainable design. London: Taylor

). Shifting from sustainability to regeneration. Building Research &n, 35(6), 674680.004). Squaring the circle: On the very idea of sustainable development.Economics, 48(4), 369384.

Taking complexity seriously. Policy analysis, triangulation, and sustain-pment. Boston: Kluwer Academic.). How can the construction industry contribute to sustainableent? A conceptual framework. Sustainable Development, 173(3),

., Chong, W. K., & Chou, J. S. (2011). Implementing sustainable devel- the construction industry: Constructors perspectives in the US andtainable Development, 19(5), 337347.Hametner, M. Objectives and indicators in sustainable development

Similarities and variances across Europe. Sustainable Development,oi.org/10.1002/sd.501, in press.). Sustainable by design declaration. Available at:w.uia-architectes.org/cop15 en.html

Nations Environment Programme. (2003). Sustainable building andn: Facts and gures. Industry and Environment. (p. 5)nited Nations Environment Programme - Sustainable Buildings &itiative. (2009). Buildings and climate change: A summary for decision-ris: UNEP DTIE Sustainable Consumption & Production Branch.erkins, H. C., & Dixon, J. E. (2011). What is social sustainability? An of concepts. Geoforum, 42(3), 342348.


van Zeijl-Rozema, A., Crvers, R., Kemp, R., & Martens, P. (2008). Governance forsustainable development: A framework sustainable development. SustainableDevelopment, 16(6), 410421.

Walker, B. H., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking. Sustaining ecosystems and peoplein a changing world. Washington: Island Press.

WCED, World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our commonfuture. New York: Oxford University Press.

Williams, C. C., & Millington, A. C. (2004). The diverse and contested meanings ofsustainable development. The Geographical Journal, 170(6), 99104.

Yanarella, E., & Bartilow, H. (2000). Dreams of sustainability: Beyond the antinomiesof the global sustainability debate. International Journal of Sustainable Develop-ment, 3(4), 370389.

Clarifying the new interpretations of the concept of sustainable building1 Introduction2 Recent interpretations of sustainable development3 Contextualizing sustainability in sustainable buildings4 Factors of uncertainty in defining sustainable buildings4.1 Time uncertainty4.2 Scale uncertainty4.3 Domain uncertainty4.4 Social uncertainty

5 The identification of a sustainable building6 ConclusionsReferences

clarifying the new interpretations of the concept of sustainable building

Documents