Sustainable Building Practices Projects
- an update on the development on the practical evaluation tool for building practices

The on-going Sustainable Building Practices (SBP) focuses on evaluation of sustainability of building practices through a stakeholder driven practical methodology. At the core of the methodology is a set of ecological, social and financial indicators against which the building practice is assessed. As part of the project, a series of regional workshops have been held in Maharashtra and Gujarat which focus on urban and rural building practices respectively. SKAT (Switzerland) and Development Alternatives are jointly conducting the project along with the local implementing partners in Maharashtra and Gujarat. As a result, committed core teams of building professionals are being formed in the regions who besides being actively involved in implementing the project, will also spearhead the adaptation of the evaluation methodology and tools in building practices after the project.

Practical Evaluation Tool

Besides the validation of the stakeholder based methodology of sustainability assessment, the most important outcome of the project is a Practical evaluation tool. After two workshops in Western Maharashtra at Lonavla and Panchgani, the core team have assimilated the results of the workshops, incorporated their specialized inputs and evolved the first version of the Practical Evaluation Tool (PET). The PET includes a set of clearly defined indicators and methodologies of measuring the performance of the building practice against those indicators. The underlying principle for selection of indicators has been:

Following the underlying criteria for developing indicators, the indicators have been customized and adapted to make their application on actual buildings uncomplicated. Elements with maximum impact on sustainability of buildings have been incorporated in the measurement methodology. The measurements are based on a definite scientific rationale and the long experience of the building professionals but, at the same time, not over-burdened by scientific precision.

For instance, while calculating the energy invested in the building, 10 major components have been considered which contribute to about 90% of the energy requirement of the building (concrete, steel, glass, aluminium, masonry units, mortar, plaster, flooring, waterproofing, plumbing and drainage). The unit of measurement is KWHr/ sq.metre/ year since KWHr is more commonly understood than Joules and because by considering the useful life of the structure, the longer lasting buildings get their deserved credit. Similarly, for waste generation, CO2, though a matter of concern being a green house gas is kept out of the list since it gets adequately reflected in the ‘Energy’ indicator. So, the materials short-listed for waste generation are cement/ lime based products, burnt clay products, plastics and polymers, slag/ ash/ other waste at manufacturing end. Each waste has a weightage relative to each other based on a ‘nuisance value’ which is evident because of the nature of each waste.

For social indicators, interaction with a representative sample group of society at large through a simple questionnaire has been the modus operandi. Each indicator has been broken down into sub-indices which are given a score based on sample survey and an average final score is derived. For instance, the User Response index takes into account the views of the occupant regarding the level of his participation, the thermal comfort levels, the provisions made for minority users, etc.  Similarly, the Labour Welfare index takes into account the wages, health and safety measures, facilities available at site, etc. In the case of social indicators particularly, the assessor is expected to exercise his/her discretion in giving weightages to bring out the essence of sustainability with the help of the tool. 

Financial indicators involve standard measuring practices for the net investment in the building. Again, to avoid complications, the cost of the land is ignored because it is not indicative of the nature of the building practice. The Operation and Maintenance considers the electricity consumed per year, the water annual water consumption and expenditures on labour and materials for annual maintenance and repairs.

For all indicator measurements, ‘bandwidths’ signifying the (numerical) gap between good and bad practices are identified which is the acceptable range of sustainability. Based on the bandwidth, the measured values of indicators are converted to a score on a common scale for all indicators (1 to 10 in this case). These scores are then plotted on a graph for a visual representation of the ‘level’ of sustainability. In the current version of the tool, the sustainability assessment follows the logic of ‘smaller and more centric the graph, the better’. The PET is in the stage of application by the core team in Pune on different urban building projects in three main categories of residential, institutional and industrial buildings. The application has brought further clarity regarding the nature of evaluation and refinement of the PET.
 

Sustainability of rural building practices- a parallel process in Gujarat

The first stakeholder workshop for rural building practices was held at Navsarjan, Ahmedabad in August 2003. The participants were mainly drawn from among people active in rural housing projects and comprised of masons, village planmakers, sarpanch, NGO representatives, architects and engineers. Over the two day period, the concept of indicators was introduced and through a participatory approach, a set of ecological, social and financial indicators were evolved as follows:

The nature of indicators selected in this case (especially social and financial parameters) was in contrast to those identified for urban building practices. Not only do the indicators differ, but also will their methodology of measurement in consonance with different factors at play in housing projects in rural areas as compared to individual urban buildings. For instance, the water requirement for a particular building practice may be a paramount ecological concern for a situation where water is scarce.

It was evident that the massive reconstruction and rehabilitation following the Gujarat earthquake weighed heavily on people’s minds while deliberating on critical issues related to rural housing. The rehabilitation efforts are a special and unique situation and therefore it is important to take a neutral stand and consider the scenario of a normal housing process which goes on in most villages. It was also realized that sudden large scale intervention by various agencies leaves its stamp in the traditional rural housing design which can adversely affect traditional practices and be harmful for the social fabric of the village.

A core team of professionals has been appointed to refine and understand the indicators more closely from the community’s point of view by way of discussions with them at different housing projects. This will involve a preliminary application of indicators in the housing projects, the results of which will be discussed in a second regional workshop to be held in the month of October in Gujarat. The outcome will again be a process methodology and a Practical Evaluation Tool for rural areas.

The real value of the tool lies in its potential for adaptation and replicability. Through the ongoing process, a vibrant SBP network will be set in place in the two regions to promote the PET leading to an increased interest in innovative decision making that enhances commitment to the larger goal of SBP. The stakeholder methodology could be used in any region to evolve simple yet robust evaluation tools for building practices.  A working model of the PET and a process document of the same will hopefully lead to its wide application and promotion of a culture of sustainable building practices.   q 

Back to Contents