Over the last 10 years, the con-struction industry has tried to change from being one that disinterestedly exists within – and often negatively impacts – the environment, to being more environmentally sensitive by adopting green building practices.

These are primarily a variety of sustainable de­sign standards such as LEED (U.S.), BREEAM (U.K.) and Green Star (Australia). Although these measures are welcome and a step in the right direction, they only deal with part of a much larger problem.

In 1965, Adlai Stevenson – then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations – said, “We travel together, passengers on a little spaceship, dependent on its vulnerable reserves of air and soil.” In doing so, he alerted the world to the necessity of preserving our valuable natural assets on which we are so heavily dependent.

It is only in recent times – with the discussion of climate change – that serious attention widely has been paid to the question of the use of scarce natural resources and the effect it has on the environment. Even so, the construction industry lags behind, using old techniques, old technologies and old ways of thinking about the built environment while trying, with limited success, to be more sustainable.

We are no longer living in a world where most natural resources can be thought of as limitless (obvious exceptions are the sources of solar, wind and nuclear power). Most are finite, and with that acknowledgment comes the realization that many resources will simply run out as we continue to consume resources at an increasing pace; the only question is when.

Public opinion, reacting to this new reality, is now shifting us into “The Age of Environmental Thrift,” where consciousness about the use of finite resources has achieved a new primacy.

When considering a new construction project, should one not be asking the question, “Why are we using any finite resources at all; what are the alternatives?” The reasons for using finite resources are obvious. Society needs to house its increasing population, enable new businesses, replace facilities that have reached the end of their useful life, and build and renovate facilities to accommodate previously unknown technologies. And yet, the best way that we do this is considered to be encompassed by sustainability guides such as LEED. As an industry, construction does not devote enough time to considering how the same outcome might be achieved using fewer resources, and this is significantly because we in construction are set in our old ways.

Now is the time to apply the attitude best espoused by Eugene Kranz, former NASA flight director. “Space is basically a test of survival – our ability to invent things that will allow us to use very limited resources,” he said. “We have to use everything, and [we] have to use it as efficiently and effectively as possible.”

It is time the construction industry adopted two new techniques – and used more regularly one long-established technique – as standard procedures when considering any new building or the renovation of an existing building. Those are:

• Measuring and understanding the service life of each building with a view to preserving its intrinsic value;
• Carefully balancing capital costs with ongoing operation and maintenance costs and environmental impact by applying lifecycle costing techniques; and
• Benchmarking the quality of each building to optimize its specific use.

Maximizing Building Life
In accounting terms, the life of a building is finite and its value is evaporated once the building has been fully depreciated. However, those of us who work in construction know that a building retains some value as long as it is still standing; the questions are what is that value, how much life is left and what would it cost to extend the life.

The answer is not as complex as it may seem. Rider Levett Bucknall developed and gifted to the state of Arizona its building life extension study model, a mathematical tool, through which it is possible to quickly and effectively determine how much value remains in the building, how much life is left in it and how much money needs to be spent on the building to extend its life to certain milestones. This methodology, en­shrined in Arizona state legislation since 2004, saved Arizona $26 million dollars in the first six months alone and has the potential to save considerably more for any government entity or private institutions that wishes to use it.

Lifecycle Cost Analysis
The technique of analyzing the lifecycle cost of a building has been known for many years and is practiced in a lot of industries, including the energy industry, shipbuilding and certain Department of Defense installations.

However, it is strangely still not considered important enough for use on most government or private building construction projects.

Unfortunately, many projects are driven by their capital budgets only, with scant acknowledgment that a balance can be found between capital cost and long-term operating and maintenance costs, which is a vital consideration when public funds are being invested.

The state of knowledge of lifecycle cost analysis has now reached the point where not only the capital and operation and maintenance costs can be compared and balanced, but usage of power and water can be pre-estimated – along with the carbon footprint – to give a true measure of the impact that the building has on the environment.

Building Quality Assessment
Through work done in conjunction with Massey University in New Zealand ap­proximately 20 years ago, Rider Levett Bucknall discovered that it is possible to measure the quality of a building; not whether it is pretty and not whether it is in a good location, but whether it is a good-quality building compared to its peers. It is important to note that by determining building quality in conjunction with lifecycle cost analysis and pre-emptive building life extension studies, better decisions can be made about capital investments, usage and minimization of resource usage.

Armed with these tools, owners can make careful decisions about how to use their existing assets more effectively and extend their lives, thereby saving scarce natural resources altogether – for a building that is not demolished and replaced is a considerable saving of resources.

The challenge for the construction industry lies in what Eugene Kranz described as “our ability to invent things that will allow us to use very limited resources.”

The industry actually has no choice and will change. Perhaps not because people perceive it to be a worthy change, but because the economics of scarce resources – in the Age of Environmental Thrift – will demand it.

Julian Anderson is president of Rider Levett Bucknall. He can be reached at 877-431-2976 or e-mail him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . For more information, visit rlb.com.

| More...