In a recent study focused on reducing embodied energy in affordable housing, researchers investigated key drivers, barriers, and techniques for enhancing sustainability. The study’s in-depth exploration revealed that while current affordable housing units met industry baseline targets for embodied energy, there’s room for improvement to align with more ambitious goals.

Interviewees identified various drivers, including the importance of proper legislation and client involvement, while noting local authorities’ role in funding and planning permission. Barriers such as shifting government priorities, limited awareness, and lack of effective discussions emerged as challenges.

Techniques for reducing embodied energy, such as utilizing local labor and supply chains, efficient space utilization, and recycling, were explored. The study underscores the need for comprehensive strategies and closer collaboration to achieve tangible reductions in embodied energy across the affordable housing sector.

Here are some more details:

Research Rationale:
This study aimed to evaluate the significance of embodied energy in affordable residential housing, focusing on perspectives of both clients and design teams. By assessing embodied energy in three housing units, the research aimed to identify areas for improvement in reducing embodied energy. The study aimed to understand how well these housing units align with specific CO2 emission targets and explored drivers, barriers, and techniques for reducing embodied carbon in line with established targets.

Methodology:
The research involved calculating the embodied energy consumption of three affordable housing units and comparing the results with various CO2 emission targets. It also identified drivers and barriers influencing the implementation of reduced embodied carbon, along with suggesting reduction techniques. The research adopted a mixed-method approach, combining quantitative analysis with qualitative insights from participants. Limitations in the embodied carbon calculation method were acknowledged, including reliance on the UK Building Blackbook and Bill of Quantities.

Key Findings:

Embodied Carbon Assessment:

• Three house types (detached and semi-detached) were selected for embodied carbon calculations.
• UK Building Blackbook used for embodied energy calculation.
• Results: Houses below 800 kg CO2/m2 baseline, two meet The London Energy Transformation Initiative (LETI) 2020 (500 kg CO2/m2), all fail The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)/2030 LETI (300 kg CO2/m2) targets.
• Main contributors to embodied carbon: Masonry work, building fabric sundries, concrete, and linings/sheathing/dry partitioning.
• Feasibility of Reduction Techniques:
• Proposed techniques: reducing wastage, opting for timber windows, loft space utilization.
• Reduction of wastage from 10% to 5% feasible, potential cost and energy savings identified.
• Timber windows vs. u-PVC: substantial reduction in element’s embodied energy, with a 2.9% average cost increase for the whole building.
• Potential for Improvement:
• Study reflects limitations of embodied carbon calculations due to UK Building Blackbook and Bill of Quantities.
• Proposed techniques aim to reduce embodied energy, but practicality and cost considerations impact feasibility in affordable housing units.
• Loft space utilization offers additional floor space and aligns with LETI targets.
• Further Research Directions:
• Study serves as exploratory research, setting the stage for more detailed investigations.
• Future research can evaluate broader impacts on buildings from construction to end of life.
• Multiple case studies could provide more generalizable insights into drivers and barriers for embodied carbon reduction.
• Deeper analysis needed to understand financial and operational implications of suggested strategies.

Drivers for Reduced Embodied Energy:

• Semi-structured interviews identified key drivers.
• Proper legislation seen as vital by 4 interviewees to promote embodied energy reduction techniques.
• Enforced regulation can steer industry, enhance data quality, and provide clear direction.
• Environmentally conscious social housing providers prioritize life cycle costing, sustainable materials, waste management, and waste removal.
• Client’s involvement recognized as significant driver; clients’ decisions affect policies and sustainability.
• Local authorities acknowledged by four participants as drivers, influencing funding and planning permission targets.
• Funding acquisition seen as crucial for affordable housing success, driving providers towards embodied energy reduction.
• Local authorities’ involvement can offer competitive advantages in embodied energy practices.
• Contrasting views on cost impact of low embodied energy products: potential cost inflation due to high demand vs. cost savings due to design efficiency.
• Perceived Client Influence:
• Participants unanimously recognized clients as the primary driver for implementing embodied energy reduction techniques.
• Client’s control in purchasing decisions and focus on KPIs highlighted as pivotal.
• Client involvement deemed essential for policy implementation and change awareness.
• Literature supports the notion of clients significantly influencing purchasing decisions and sustainability material adoption.
• Local Authorities’ Role:
• Local authorities identified as underexplored driver in literature but widely discussed in interviews.
• Funding or planning permission targets set by local authorities influence affordable housing organizations.
• Local authority involvement can confer competitive advantages in embodied energy practices.
• Funding acquisition’s criticality to affordable housing success discussed, driving organizations towards embodied energy reduction.
• Cost and Energy Relationship:
• Participants highlighted potential inflation of low embodied energy product costs due to high demand.
• Contrasts with literature showing reduced project costs with reduced embodied energy.
• Embodied energy minimization viewed as by-product of cost-saving initiatives, revealing correlation between cost and energy.

Barriers to Reduced Embodied Energy

• Semi-structured interviews revealed barriers.
• Shifted government focus from sustainability to housing demand due to world situation affects embodied energy reduction strategies.
• Lack of awareness and value in reducing embodied energy reported by Interviewees A and C.
• Absence of proper discussion with design and construction teams regarding embodied energy reduction.
• HQM platform not followed in Interviewee A’s organization; local councils unaware of embodied energy impact.
• Site constraints, financial barriers, and disparities between academics and professionals impact reduction strategies.
• Profit margins drive costs; housing providers build to market demand, affecting affordability.
• Consumer focus lacking; operational energy prioritized over embodied energy
• Industry fragmentation, lack of specifying efficiently, and knowledge gap hinder reduction implementation.
• Wide system boundaries, poor methodology contribute to data uncertainty in embodied energy.

In the pursuit of a more sustainable future, this study offers valuable insights into the realm of affordable housing and embodied energy reduction. By delving into the drivers, barriers, and techniques shaping the industry’s efforts, the research sheds light on the intricate balance between environmental consciousness and practicality.

Paper Title: Embodied Energy Consumption in the Residential Sector: A Case Study of Affordable Housing
Authors: Nicole Anderson 1, Gayan Wedawatta 2,, Ishara Rathnayake 3 , Niluka Domingo 4 and Zahirah Azizi 1,
1 Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Northumbria University,
Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7XA, UK;
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK
3 UniSA STEM, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, SA 5095, Australia;
4 School of Built Environment, Massey University, Auckland 0632, New Zealand

The full paper is under the Creative Commons License CC BY 4.0 and is available here.