Deep Dive into Sustainability Assessment Methods Cradle-to-Grave: Detriment or Benefit?

Abstract

The Construction Industry has been portrayed as a culprit in the global pursuit of sustainable development due to the vast resources that the industry exploits and the chemicals and pollutants it emits. It is commonly estimated that the construction industry utilizes about 30- 40% of the global natural resources. An important mitigator in the quest for a more sustainable construction industry is Sustainability Assessment Methods (SAMs) or Green Building Rating Systems. SAMs were first introduced in the early 2000s and has since gained momentum worldwide. It is now predicted to become a mainstream practice for large construction projects. Different studies show that capital costs may increase short-term, compared to a ‘ordinary’ project. However, certifying can lead to 6-30% in long-term capital savings. On the other hand, actors in the industry sometimes perceive certain criteria or sustainability indicators (SIs) belonging to SAMs to be ill-considered. Do these SIs still contribute toward sustainability, are they beneficial or detrimental to the project? This Master Thesis investigates three SAMs, BREEAM, LEED and Miljöbyggnad along with the ecolabel Nordic Swan and service SundaHus. What are their sustainability indicators grounded on? Are they aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and does a certified building equal a sustainable one? Two case studies are included in the Thesis. These investigate whether or not energy saving measures from two different kinds of heat exchangers are more sustainable then procuring only green power, such as BraMiljöval, in a specific real-life project. The case studies evaluate the possible energy savings and what Global Warming Potential (GWP) they have and compare which solution has the lowest GWP. The conclusion is that certified buildings do not equal sustainable buildings, but it is likely that the CO2 footprint of a certified building will be less than that of a non-certified. Since SAMs are not adapted per project, in certain scenarios some SIs become a detriment rather than a benefit, but in a larger sense are still beneficial. Additionally, SAMs do contribute toward the UNs SDGs and Sweden’s Environmental Quality Goals