Lonavala Sustainable Building Practices Workshop — A Report

Pankaj Khanna

Since the late 1980s, there have been successive and widely publicised initiatives to assess building practices in order to steer them towards sustainable development. An important lesson learnt from them is that a ‘Macro’ view, in favour of a ‘Micro level’ assessment of materials, elements or buildings, is required to understand the potential consequences of our building practices and assess their long-term sustainability.

The concept of ‘appropriateness’ of a building technology must emerge from a holistic approach. Instead of being exclusively linked with ‘low cost’, as is often the case, it should consider complete buildings as entire systems and regard financial, ecological and social sustainability of the system as imperatives for sustainable development. 

’In order to check the true effectiveness of appropriate technologies, a set of practical performance variables or indicators of the technology/ practice need to be determined which can act as references for assessment and comparison of different building practices. The ‘Sustainable Building Practices’ workshop was held to develop a practical evaluation tool, which is derived from indicators, and to assess the overall sustainability of our building practices. The workshop was jointly organized by Swiss Center for Appropriate Technology (SKAT), Development Alternatives (DA) and Maharashtra Industrial and Technical Consultants (MITCON).

The Process

The workshop was designed as a highly participatory and moderated process with ‘Working Sessions’ of participants alternately in plenary and in groups. Every ‘working group’ session was followed by presentation of the group work and incorporation of the feedback from the whole body. The indicators emerged out of the rich knowledge and experiences of the participants and reflected the concerns of users and practitioners in the building construction sector. The small and diverse, yet like-minded, group of participants selected from within western Maharashtra comprised of architects, builders/ developers, structural experts, dealers and manufacturers of material and government officers. The work of every stakeholder had been influenced or inspired by the concern for sustainability. The workshop was delineated into 5 modules covering the following essential tasks:


Forging links between man and wilderness! - A building by Austrian artist Hundertwasser

 

l  Introduction, background and objectives
l Concept of ‘sustainability’ and ‘Indicators’ and experience sharing
l Development and selection of indicators and frames of reference
l Application of indicators to develop the evaluation tool
l Action plan and commitments

 

Expert view on Sustainability and its Indicators

Mr. Alois Muller from SKAT presented an expert view on the concept of sustainability and the various issues related to it and also the concept of assessing sustainability through ‘indicators’. Five important issues concerning sustainable building practices were highlighted - Low building cost, Low maintenance cost, simple building maintenance, healthy environment and healthy interiors. A cyclic thinking for construction processes must ensure minimum hazard to environment. The work done by Austrian artist Hundertwasser fosters a pure relationship between man and nature and his ‘value system’ which lays down indicators to compare a typical modern building and an ecologically sound building. The value system developed by him considered, amongst other factors, air and water quality, solar energy and climate responsiveness, waste management and maintenance. Fossil Fuel consumption is a Key concern for sustainability. A global view of sustainability clearly indicates that eco-efficiency leader countries are likely to be winners of the future global competition

 

Alois Muller, SKAT

 

Indicators of Sustainability

In order to work towards the definition of practical indicator sets, the concept of sustainability was broken down into more manageable components. Deliberations over two days were aimed at laying down practical indicators covering social, financial and ecological implications of building practices in typical urban, rural and industrial contexts (frames of reference).

Based on the profiles of the participants, three Working Groups (WG) for financial, social and ecological aspects respectively were formed. A stepwise process was followed to first make an exhaustive list of indicators and then eliminate and cluster them under ‘Primary’ indicator sets. Finally, using a system of color coding, all participants cast their vote for three preferences for social, financial and ecological indicators. Following indicators were selected:

l Social – Local skill (1st ), Incentives/ Recognition, Cultural activities
l Ecological – Energy consumption (1st ), SPM emission, Local material x Distance
l  Financial – Return on Investment (1st) , Net Investment, Operation and Maintenance

 

 

Frames of Reference

It was evident that the indicators would acquire new meaning and implications when placed in different contexts. Therefore, for a more practical assessment of situations, it was decided to assess sustainability by applying the chosen indicators in three different contexts with specific characteristics:
l Rural - A typical residential structure
l Urban - A typical apartment building
l Industrial - A typical MID compatible small- scale unit
Three small groups were formed to work to develop three frames of reference and provide the following basic details for each frame in the context of Pune :
l A typical plan and elevation of the structure with approximate area
l Specifications of materials used (foundation, walls, roof, Door/ window, finishes, etc.) and source of materials if possible
l Type of skills required for construction

 

Application of Indicators

A context specific rating of indicators was done by the three working groups wherein sustainability of building practices was ranked in the three contexts against the nine indicators. The ranking was done differently for two situations of ‘Most common/ prevalent practice’ and ‘Best/ Ideal Practice’. The rankings from the three groups for financial, ecological and social sustainability were assimilated into an objective and comparative evaluation tool.

 

The ‘Polygonal’ Evaluation tool

The ratings by the three groups against all nine indicators ( 27 ratings each for three frames of reference ) were assimilated and their average was taken. This was a simple method of visually determining a relative average among ‘plottings’ of the three groups on a common scale. The ‘averages’ were then plotted on nine different axes corresponding to the nine indicators seperately for ‘most common’ practice and ‘ideal practice’. This resulted in six different ‘radar diagrams’ or polygonal graphs, two each for the three frames of reference. A value closer to the centre of the polygon indicates better performance of a particular building system.

By looking at the shape and the centricity of the polygon, it is possible to make qualified statements about the overall sustainability of the building system under analysis. The more centric and the more compact the polygon, the more sustainable is the building system. The tool can also be used to plan and prioritize interventions in different building sectors. For instance, the graph for the rural sector indicates a heavy social component. So, by gaining ground in this aspect, one will have better insights to work in other areas. As long as the axes of the radar diagram remain constant, it is also possible to make comparative statements from one system to another.

The present tool has been designed taking into account the regional preferences of Pune and can be re-deve-loped for other areas. The exercise was undertaken in a regional context to avoid the problem of geographical and cultural diversity of a larger context.

Action Plan

Few key decisions were taken as part of the follow-up strategy of the workshop. Refinement of the tool is essential through a reality check on the indicators by using confirmed data and applying it to the evaluation tool. The tool would need to be documented and disseminated to policy makers by sensitizing key position holders in the government and gaining their favour. Replication of the workshop methodology for other building practices in and outside Pune is also an important concern.

Monetary support for the field application, refinement and dissemination of the tool is a crucial concern. Therefore, it has been decided to draft a proposal, which would elaborate the Workshop Process, terms of reference for Lobbying and network creation and management aspects. The proposal would be presented to Funding Agencies who could potentially fund the activities identified in the Action Plan. MITCON would take the lead in implementation of the action plan with DA and SKAT as backstoppers.

It was widely felt that the workshop was well organised and that there had been appreciable personal benefits to each participant both on account of the importance of the workshop objective and networks developed among the whole group. The workshop had been refreshing and productive, with the participants feeling a sense of ownership towards the assessment tool. The tool and the methodology had been considerably well understood. However, the group was honest enough to admit that the acceptance and usefulness of the tool could not be commented upon with certainty just then. It was only through field testing and monitoring as well as subsequent refinement of the tool that its real potential would emerge. q