14Th International Conference on Sustainable Environment and Architecture, Banda Aceh

14th International Conference on Sustainable Environment and Architecture, Banda Aceh, Indonesia, 7th-9thNovember 2013

Title:Changing Attitudes to Sustainability

Author: D. J. Harris, School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh UK.

Abstract

The concept of sustainabilityhas been around for about twenty years, and in that time there have been profound changes in the way we think about the environment, and also in that time the concept of sustainability has not only entered general currency, but has itself undergone shifts in its meaning.

Our understanding of sustainability has increased over the years since the concept was introduced by Bruntland in 1987; it is not necessary for me to repeat to such an audience the definition of sustainability which was stated in the report. Sustainability is a word that is used in almost every conversation about energy or the activities of humans as a whole, and sadly is probably one of the most abused expressions of recent years. It is applied to almost every field of human endeavour from conserving rainforests to selling soft drinks. Indeed, the expression ‘sustainable development’ sometimes seems to be used to cover activities that are neither sustainable, nor could be considered ‘development’.

The origin of sustainability

This concept of sustainability grew out of increasing concerns for the environment, such as damage caused to rainforests through logging and clearances, pollution in rivers, lakes and seas, and atmospheric pollution. The effects of global warming, as it was then referred to, were just being realised, and the impact of burning fossil fuels was becoming more widely known. The real impetus for early research on solar and other alternative energy sources in the 70s and early eighties came from increases in oil price, and the possibility of fuel shortages.

The key word being environment, perhaps we should take a moment to think what it means. The dictionary definition of environment is ‘surrounding objects or circumstances.’ For our present purposes this is a rather useful definition, the word ‘circumstances’ implying that it is not only what the surrounding objects and substances arethat matter, but their state, such as temperature, humidity, contaminant concentration, etc., and depending on the context, the environment can mean the roomin which one is sitting, the immediate surroundings such as the local streets, or the whole biosphere.

Until recent decades, the attitude of most people was that the environment was an ever-expanding ‘sink’ for waste materials, and could continue to absorb increasing amounts of waste for an infinite amount of time. We know that this is not the case, and that there are limits to which the air and waters can absorb waste materials without becoming contaminated to a degree which makes them harmful to life. The seas were regarded as a dustbin for any form of waste, and it was assumed that any contaminant would be diluted to such an extent that it became harmless. However,research has shown that ocean currents do not produce perfect mixing or uniform dilution, and in seas such as the Mediterranean, for example, pollutants can circulate and their concentrations can build to dangerously high levels.For much of the past, and indeed in many instances at the present time, businesses have acted with little concern for the negative impact they have on the environment. The view, widely held in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, that nature was a primitive force to be conquered for the benefit of mankind, has been modified through concepts such as the Gaia hypothesis, devised by James Lovelock, and the notion of environmental stewardship, in which the interdependency of environmental activities, and our responsibility to maintain the quality of the environment, are recognised.

Our attitudes towards the environment have therefore changed, and nowadays we endeavour more and more to work with nature rather than trying to ‘conquer’ it; we are now making greater efforts to reduce material consumption, minimise waste and recycle or reuse more; public understanding of sustainability has improved, and many businesses now insist on some degree of accountability regarding the sustainability of the supply chain of the materials they use.

The concept of sustainability has been useful in making people more aware of the consequences of their actions, particularly with respect to the environment. Environmental Assessment Methods are used in many fields now, including architecture and building development. Architects are more concerned about the materials they use, the environmental impact of supplying them, their embodied energy, and what happens after the building is no longer useful. Local site issues are considered more; are you removing an important local amenity, are you destroying a valuable wildlife habitat? These questions have been formalised into environmental assessment systems such as BREEAMwhich can be used to help improve sustainability at the design stage, and increase awareness of the environmental issues for the members of the design team.

The effort involved in making such assessments carries with it an additional cost, and may add to the time taken for the development. Furthermore, the use of different materials, etc., to make a development more sustainable may add to the construction costs, although many people argue that sustainable building does not have to be any more costly than conventional methods. Thus, economics has entered the realm of sustainability, and with it the familiar cry of ‘we’d love to make it more sustainable, but we can’t afford it.’

In many countries we have seen a growth in the number of ‘green’ or low energy buildings in recent years, and stricter regulation aimed at producing only low-carbon or indeed zero-carbon buildings for the future, but there are also many buildings constructed that are not in any way ‘green’ – ‘glass boxes’ which are not appropriate to the local climate and which consume huge amounts of energy and are badly controlled. Such buildings are still produced in large numbers, but this must change, or the challenge of climate change will never be met. Attempts are made to use local, natural and renewable materials and are often successful, but some of these attempts may be seen as ‘cosmetic’ only, or gimmicks to spuriously enhance a building’s green credentials. Though seemingly based on logical analysis, this has also led to strange attempts to re-use waste items as building materials, such as the famous Heinken ‘Wobo’, a beer bottle that could be used as a brick after its contents have been enjoyed.

Greater respect is now paid to the wisdom embodied in vernacular architecture; we have now learned to calculate the energy embodied in buildings, and can see at a glance the significant energy savings that can be made from recycling, and can even estimate the maximum sensible distance to transport materials for recycling.

In order to make meaningful progress in this area certain essentials must be in place; capital to invest in more sustainable solutions, people with the skills to handle the organization and technology involved, and above all, the political will to do it. In a world in the grip of economic difficulties it is not easy to assemble all these elements, and for poorer countries in particular it can present a major challenge, because at the same time as they are being urged to become more sustainable they are also trying to develop economically; this often involves trying to balanceconflicting demands for limited resources, and can lead to tensions in society. One heartening note in all this is the enthusiasm of many young people for developing more sustainable solutions; we have a generation of people in their twenties who have grown up with the concept of sustainability, who often now learn in primary school what some of us only discovered years after completing our formal education, and who have a better understanding of their role in the stewardship of the earth than many of their elders. Education, therefore, has a major role to play in promoting not only the notion of sustainability, but the detailed knowledge and skills necessary to implement it.

Development

Development was mentioned earlier, and we need to go back to that for a minute or two to consider what we mean by development, and what it implies for sustainability.

Like sustainability, development is difficult to define precisely as it means different things to different people; Definitions usually begin with assuming that it means an increase in in real per capita income. Additional requirements may include a proviso that the number below an absolute poverty line does not increase, and that the distribution of income should become more equal. Other aspects which have also been defined as essential by some commentators include meeting the basic needs of the poor, maintaining cultural sensitivity, and involvement of communitiesin the development process from the bottom upwards: and further goals of development may include a requirement that the strategies used are environmentally sustainable. These social issues, along with the environmental and economic ones mentioned earlier, complete the ‘sustainability triangle’ with which we are all familiar.

The goals of development and sustainability may place different demand on a society, especially where resources – particularly funds - are scarce.

For millions of people around the world, the word development would mean addressing their basic needs for food, clean water, fresh air, fuel, shelter, health care, education and employment. Recognizing this, the United Nations produced a series of eight International Development Goals following the Millennium summit of the UN in 2000, with 189 member states and other international organisations committed to help achieve these goals by 2015. It is fair to say that progress to date has been uneven.

How these may be achieved produces more questions than answers - is it possible, for example, toprovide good education and health without massive industrialisation? Is large scale industrialisation a good or a bad thing? Or is it neutral?

One example - It may be argued that a lack of developed industry should open up opportunities for a country to develop in a more sustainable way, avoiding the environmental mistakes that the ‘pioneer’ industrial countries such as Britain and Germany made in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries – one could think back to the blackened skies over England in the early 20th century, as a result of burning coal to power industry and development, and the ensuing health problems suffered by the inhabitants and industrial workers (slides). However, even given a different starting point for development, cost and otherconstraints mean that sustainable approaches to development remain difficult to implement. There is always the temptation to go for the ‘cheap first cost’ option, at the expense of long term gains in sustainability. Sustainability, after all, is not just about us, but about subsequent generations as well.It is necessary to consider development because the world does not stand still, and the nature of society changes, the level of industrialisation changes, and these all affect sustainability. In the UK , for example average household size fell from 3.1 in 1961 to 2.4 in 2011, leading to an increase in the number and a change in the type of dwellings needed – from 3 & 4 bedroom-houses to 1 & 2 bedroom properties – and changes in the property market and demand for land. As we have seen in the UK, the market, left to itself, is not always ready to meet the demand.

Urbanization

Urbanisation is another crucial issue to consider for sustainability and development.

Cities are centres of economic activity, investment, social activities and employment, among other things, and large numbers of people migrate every year to cities with the expectation of job opportunities and a better life. However, this migration causes a number of problems; overpopulation, increased crime, waste, pollution, slums, squatters, housing shortages, and environmental effects. Urbanization has changed the landscape in many places, the lack of housing supply and rising land prices create crowded communities, and have a further impact on those already living in such communities. Land and housing tenure help to create a sense of responsibility and ownership in the community, but those migrating to cities often find themselves forced to accept informal settlements where such tenure does not exist, and they become trapped in a vicious spiral. In other countries such as Angola, there are reports of forced evictions of temporary shelter dwellers in cities to make way for shopping centres and government housing projects. However, such communities often lack access to basic requirements such as fresh water, energy, sewage and waste disposal. In densely-populated developing countries with high growth rates (population and economy) the pressures on cities are highest.There have even been reports that in some places enforced urbanisation of large numbers of people is taking place, in order to artificially create a transition from a low wage-low skills export-driven economy to a high wage-high skills society driven by domestic consumption. Naturally this implies the potential for violations of individual rights and other problems, and places great strains on the built environment.

To some extent greater prosperity acts against sustainability: wealthier people have no economic imperative to be thrifty in their use of fuel or other resources and drive bigger, less efficient cars and have larger air conditioned houses. On the other hand, ‘green’, organic and other more sustainable products are often at a price that the poor cannot afford. Furthermore, poor people with limited access to finance often find that they are forced to pursue the ‘lowest first cost’ option, which may be more expensive and less sustainable in the long run. According to Barbier, ‘They often have no choice but to opt for immediate economic benefits at the expense of the long-run sustainability of their livelihoods.’ With development we need to ensure that the poor are not pushed into more and more unsustainable choices in their lives, as it is often the case that poor people are driven to doing environmental damage in their daily struggle to survive – overgrazing land, deforestation etc. Again, according to Barbier, ‘The primary concern of sustainable economic development therefore is ensuring that the poor have access to sustainable and secure livelihoods.’

Sustainability and business

Sustainability and development do not exist in a commercial vacuum. It is very easy, especially for academics and other people who may not be engaged in any commercial activity, to talk idealistically about the environment and sustainability, but businesses exist in order to make and sell products or services, and in order to survive they must make a profit, and, equally, governments have an obligation to run services in a way thatmakes efficient use of resources. Therefore, there has to be a business case for an organisation to operate in an environmentally sustainable way, otherwise, why would they engage in the activity at all?

An example of where a ‘more sustainable’ fuel option created conflict is in the field of renewable energy: many advances in renewable energy supplies have been made, but some solutions create as many problems as they overcome. Planting of crops for biofuels helps us to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, but reduces the amount of land available for food crops, and creates tensions between those needing to grow crops to eat and other landowners wishing only to maximise the financial return on their land, who may find that fuel crops are more profitable. Which is better? Which is more sustainable?

Local action

We are used to the idea of‘thinking globally, acting locally’ that arose out of the early work on appropriate technology by Schumaker, and was further developed in Agenda 21 which emerged from Bruntland, however, the implementation of sustainable development within local communities often challenges the traditional structures and decision-making procedures within local authorities, requiring a movement towards more public participation and partnership approaches to decision making and problem solving. In many countries this approach mayquestion existing top-down mode of government and cultural attitudes, creating tensions in society.

Certain aspects of sustainability – carbon emissions, material consumption, etc. - are relatively easy to measure, and it is therefore fairly straightforward to assess the effectiveness of building developments in these respects. Consequently, substantial improvements in the environmental performance of buildings have been made in the last two decades. However, many people believe that the social and economic aspects, which are significantly more difficult to evaluate, have not received sufficient attention, and governments have now begun to measure sustainability through quality of life and the well-being of citizens.

The question of how to measure such intangible quantities must therefore be addressed, and this process has been developing in recent years. In the past, sustainability was considered an objective and clear concept based on scientific evidence and consensus, whereas recently it has more often been reinterpreted as relative, socially rooted and contextually dependent. This process of revising the meaning of sustainability has led to the concept of sustainability science, and the United Nations Secretary General's High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability recently wrote that “sustainable development is not a destination, but a dynamic process of adaptation, learning and action. It is about recognizing, understanding and acting on interconnections—above all, those between the economy, society and the natural environment.”