1. 1
Identifying
barriers
to
the
use
of
natural
building
materials
in
mainstream
construction
in
Ireland
Student:
Caelan
Bristow
Supervisor:
Pete
Walker
Department
of
Architecture
and
Civil
Engineering
The
University
of
Bath
September
2015
MSc
Architectural
Engineering:
Environmental
Design
2. 2
Acknowledgements
Thank you to everyone who participated in my two surveys and to my interviewees
who provided helpful with their knowledge: Tom Woolley, Chris Magwood, Jim Carfrae,
Mike Lawrence, Mike Haslam, Ann-Marie Fallon, Niall Crosson, Ian Pritchett, Edward
Byrne, Duncan Stewart, Pat Barry, Sally Starbuck, Donal Magner, Simon Corbey,
Fergal O’Malley and Henry Thompson. I am also very grateful for the thorough and
enthusiastic feedback provided by Feile Butler, James Byrne and Jeremy Rynhart on
the case study projects and on the topic in general.
Thanks also to Dr. Caitriona Kinsella for providing clarity on methodology, and positive
feedback when I needed it most, Nicholas Ward for final proof-reading, my supervisor
Pete Walker, my course director Sukumar Natarajan, Anne Ward for warm hospitality
especially during the intensive period.
Finally, my greatest appreciation goes to Nick and Arvo who have been so patient with
me. Let the adventure begin!
3. 3
Table of Contents
LIST
OF
FIGURES,
CHARTS
AND
TABLES
7
ABSTRACT
8
CHAPTER
ONE
INTRODUCTION
9
1.1
Drivers
and
Background
to
this
research
9
1.2
Beyond
Operational
Energy
10
1.3
Current
Practice
in
Ireland
-‐
Mainstream
Manufacturing
&
Construction
11
1.3.1
Irish
Construction
statistics
11
1.3.2
Mainstream
Manufacturing
&
Production
of
Building
Materials
&
Products
11
1.4
Current
Practice
in
Ireland
–
Natural,
low
impact
Manufacturing
and
Construction
12
1.4.1
Suppliers
of
imported
natural
building
materials
in
Ireland
12
1.5
Focus
of
this
research
13
1.6
Aims,
Objectives
&
Methodology
14
1.7
Contribution
to
knowledge
15
1.8
Research
scope
&
Restrictions
15
1.8.1
Definitions
15
1.8.2
Scope
of
Research
15
1.9
Structure
of
thesis
17
CHAPTER
TWO
LITERATURE
REVIEW
18
2.1
Introduction
18
2.2
Why
should
we
build
with
NBMs?
18
2.3
The
Benefits
of
NBMs
19
2.3.1
Performance
19
2.3.2
Health
&
Environmental
Impacts
of
Buildings
19
2.4
Sustainable
Construction
20
2.4.1
Barriers
to
and
drivers
of
sustainable
construction
20
2.4.3
Strategies
to
increase
the
use
of
NBMs
21
2.5
Current
practice
–
natural
building
in
Ireland
21
2.5.1
Ecological
Developments,
communities
and
organisations
21
2.5.2
Research
projects
on
sustainable
building
and
NBMs
in
Ireland
22
2.6
Gaps
in
knowledge
22
4. 4
CHAPTER
THREE
METHODOLOGY
24
3.1
Introductioin
24
3.2
Pilot
Study
25
3.3
Survey
26
3.3.1
Particpants
26
3.3.2
Construction
Industry
Survey
(see
Appendix
A
for
complete
survey
questions)
26
3.3.3
Non-‐industry
end-‐user
Survey
26
3.4
Interviews
27
3.5
Case
Studies
28
3.6
Technique
of
analysis
29
Mixed
Method
Approach
29
3.7
Validity
of
methodology
29
3.3.1
Thematic
Analysis
30
CHAPTER
FOUR
SURVEY
AND
INTERVIEW
REPORT
AND
ANALYSIS
31
4.1.
Quantitative
Results
31
4.1.1
Construction
industry
Survey
Results
31
4.1.1.1
Section
One:
Attitude,
knowledge
&
awareness
31
4.1.1.2
Section
Two:
Building
Regulations,
Technical
Guidance,
and
Environmental
Impacts
35
4.1.1.3
Section
Three:
Market,
Infrastructure,
Investment,
Lenders
and
Insurance
37
4.1.2
End-‐User/Occupant
Survey
Results
40
4.1.2.1
Section
One:
Attitude,
knowledge
&
awareness
40
4.1.2.2
Section
Two:
Building
Regulations,
Technical
guidance
43
4.1.2.3
Section
Three:
Market,
Infrastructure,
Investment,
Lenders
and
Insurance
45
4.1.3
Comparison
of
results:
similarities
&
differences
47
4.2
Qualitative
results
from
surveys
and
interviews
48
4.2.1
Construction
Industry
Survey
results
50
4.2.1.1
Perceived
Benefits
of
NBMs
50
4.2.1.2
Perceived
Disadvantages
51
4.2.1.3
Attitude
to
Environmental
&
Health
Impacts
52
4.2.1.4
Regulations
53
4.2.1.5
Environmental
Product
Declarations
54
4.2.1.6
Material
&
Product
Certification
54
4.2.1.7
Attitude
to
potential
NBM
market
55
4.2.1.8
Lenders
and
Insurers
55
4.2.2
End-‐user
Survey
Qualitative
results
57
4.2.2.1
Benefits
57
4.2.2.1
Disadvantages
57
4.2.2.3
Attitude
to
Environmental
&
Health
Impacts
58
4.2.2.4
Environmental
Product
Declarations
59
4.2.2.5
Lenders
and
Insurers
60
4.3
Interviews
61
4.3.1
Attitudes
of
construction
industry
and
end-‐users
61
4.3.2
NBM
Knowledge
and
Experience
63
4.3.3
Industry
and
Market
64
4.3.4
Building
Regulations
and
Certification
65
4.3.5
Insurance
Provision
66
5. 5
4.4
Summary
of
perceived
barriers
67
CHAPTER
FIVE
CASE
STUDIES
68
5.1
Review
of
Aims
&
Objectives
68
5.2
Case
Studies
68
5.2.1
Case
Study
1:
Byrne
House,
Abbeyshrule
Co.
Longford
68
5.2.1.1
Project
Description
69
5.2.1.2
Barriers
and
solutions
70
5.2.2
Case
Study
2:
Rehan
Electronics
Factory,
Co.
Wexford
71
5.2.2.1
Project
Description
72
5.2.2.2
Barriers
&
Solutions
73
5.2.3
Case
Study
3:
Rynhart
House,
Co.
Wicklow
74
5.2.3.1
Project
Description
75
5.2.3.2
Barriers
and
Solutions
76
5.2.4
Case
Study
4:
Butler-‐Ritchie
house,
Co.
Sligo
77
5.2.4.1
Project
Description
78
5.2.4.2
Barriers
and
Solutions
79
CHAPTER
SIX
DISCUSSION
OF
PERCEIVED
BARRIERS
AND
PROPOSED
SOLUTIONS
80
6.1
Perceived
Barriers
80
6.1.1
Type
One
–
Knowledge
Barriers
80
6.1.1.1
Awareness
of
Impacts
80
6.1.1.2
Knowledge
about
NBMs
and
Experience
using
NBMs
81
6.1.1.3
Industry
&
end-‐user
Attitude
towards
NBMs
81
6.1.1.4
Main
Barriers
–
Type
One
81
6.1.2
Type
Two
–
Regulations
81
6.1.2.1
Regulations
and
Standards
on
NBM
Construction
82
6.1.2.2
Main
Barriers
–
Type
Two
82
6.1.3
Type
Three
–
Systematic
Barriers
82
6.1.3.1
Societal
Values
82
6.1.3.2
Construction
Materials
Industry
and
NBM
Market
83
6.1.3.3
Government
Priorities
83
6.1.3.4
Banks
and
insurers
83
6.1.3.5
Main
Barriers
–
Type
Three
84
Summary
84
6.2
Proposed
Strategies
to
Increase
NBM
construction
84
6.2.1
Professional
&
Societal
knowledge
84
6.2.1.1
Increase
Public
Awareness
of
the
impacts
of
buildings
84
6.2.1.2
Educate
the
workforce
85
6.2.1.3
Provide
Official
Technical
Guidance
&
Codes
of
Practice
85
6.2.1.4
Encourage
suppliers
to
stock
NBMs
and
create
a
NBM
practitioner
database
85
6.2.2
Building
Regulations
and
Embodied
Energy
rating
system
85
6.2.3
Systematic
change
86
6.2.3.1
Society
86
6.2.3.2
Market,
Industry
and
Government
Incentives
86
6.2.3.3
Banks
and
Insurers
86
CHAPTER
SEVEN
CONCLUSION
88
7.1
Outcome
of
this
Research
88
7.2
Study
Limitations
88
6. 6
7.3
Potential
Impacts
of
this
study
89
7.4
Beneficiaries
89
7.4
Recommendations
for
Future
Work
90
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AND
REFERENCES
91
APPENDIX
A
NATURAL
BUILDING
MATERIALS
SURVEY
–
CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY
95
APPENDIX
B
SAMPLE
GROUP
BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
97
7. 7
List of Figures, Charts and Tables
Figure 1. Lifecycle carbon emissions of a typical building ..............................................9
Figure 2. Carbon Spike at Construction Phase ............................................................10
Figure 3. Statement from BMF website.........................................................................12
Figure 4. Roadmap of Boundaries................................................................................16
Figure 5. Relevant Research Flowchart.........................................................................18
Figure 6. Drivers and Barriers for Sustainable Construction ........................................20
Figure 7. The Village, Cloughjordan...............................................................................21
Figure 8. Process of Mixed Method Approach..............................................................30
Figure 9. Awareness of energy use & emissions (Industry) ...........................................32
Figure 10. Perceived composition of energy use & emissions (% Industry responding)
................................................................................................................................32
Figure 11. Supply Chain knowledge (Industry) ..............................................................32
Figure 12. What "natural building" means (% Industry responding)..............................33
Figure 13. Familiarity with NBM Performance (% Industry responding)........................33
Figure 14.Previous training (Industry) ............................................................................34
Figure 15. Experience with NBMs (Industry)..................................................................34
Figure 16. Reasons for not using NBMs (% Industry respondents) ..............................35
Figure 17. Importance of health & environmental impacts (industry) ............................36
Figure 18. Opinion re enforced regulations on impacts (Industry).................................36
Figure 19. Should EPDs be mandatory (Industry)..........................................................37
Figure 20. Support of Irish NBM industry ......................................................................38
Figure 21. Perceived reasons for higher cost of NBMs (Industry) .................................38
Figure 22. Awareness of energy use & emissions of buildings (End-users) ..................40
Figure 23. Perceived composition of energy use & emissions (% End-users
responding).............................................................................................................40
Figure 24. Knowledge of Suppy Chain (End-users)......................................................41
Figure 25. Meaning of "natural building" (% End-users responding) ...........................41
Figure 26. Known NBMs (% End-Users responding) ...................................................42
Figure 27. Reasons for not using NBMs (% End-users responding).............................42
Figure 28. Familiarity with NBM performance (% End-user responding) .....................43
Figure 29. Importance of Health & Environmental Impacts (End-users).......................43
Figure 30. Opinion on enforced regulations on impacts (End-users) ............................44
Figure 31. Should EPDs be mandatory (End-users) .....................................................44
Figure 32. Support for Irish NBM industry (% End-users responding).........................45
Figure 33. Opinion on government support for NBM industry (End-users) ..................45
Figure 34. Opinion on cost influence of NBMs (End-users)..........................................46
Figure 37. Byrne hemp lime house ...............................................................................68
Figure 38. Rehan Factory..............................................................................................71
Figure 39. Rynhart timber frame house ........................................................................74
Figure 40. Butler-Ritchie cob house .............................................................................77
Figure 41. Difficulty pyramid .........................................................................................80
Table 1. Aims, Objectives and Methodologies ..............................................................14
Table 2. Summary of Perceived Barriers .......................................................................67
8. 8
Abstract
This dissertation investigates the primary barriers to the wide scale use of natural
building materials (NBMs) in Ireland. The study is motivated by a concern that
insufficient attention is paid to the impacts of Ireland’s buildings contribution to climate
change, particularly with regard to embodied energy and embodied CO2 of
construction materials, the environmental impacts during all lifecycle stages and the
effects of conventional materials and construction systems on occupant health.
There is a body of international research on attitudes to sustainability and barriers to
sustainable construction but there does not appear to be any research on the above-
mentioned subject, least of all in Ireland. In general, attitudes and practice of natural,
low impact building is under-researched in Ireland despite a growing community of
natural building practitioners.
It was deemed that the most appropriate methodology for the purpose of the study was
a “Mixed Method” approach, using quantitative and qualitative analysis in the form of
surveys and interviews, to gauge the position of construction industry professionals and
end-users. Using the common psychology technique, Thematic Analysis, survey and
interview responses were coded to reveal barriers specific to each sample group.
Following this, representatives of selected case studies were presented with the range
of barriers and were asked to select and comment on the most relevant, the outcome of
which informed the process of determination.
Emerging from this rigorous analysis were three levels of barriers, posing minimal to
substantial difficulty to overcome.
9. 9
Chapter One Introduction
This dissertation presents the research findings of a study of attitudes and practice
among construction industry professionals and end-users towards natural building
materials (NBMs) on the island of Ireland. The aim of the research was to determine
the most prevalent barriers to the mainstream uptake of NBMs found in each group
and in general.
The collected results, both quantitative and qualitative, provided insight on the scale
and intensity of the challenges to those who want to build low impact natural buildings
in Ireland, and this thesis suggests possible strategies for resolving those challenges.
1.1 Drivers and Background to this research
The key driver for this research was a concern regarding the current narrow focus on
energy performance and CO2 emissions in Ireland as the sole impact that buildings
have on climate change. Current building policy and practice in Ireland concerning
material choice and design focuses almost entirely on regulating CO2 emissions in use.
There is no emphasis on the lifecycle embodied energy and carbon. Further, current
manufacturing and production processes of many Irish building products have
detrimental impacts on the environment and may be hazardous to the health of
building occupants. For these reasons it is imperative that alternative certified low
impact1
building products and methods be approved and appropriate training courses
be widely available.
Typically buildings account for between 38-48% of total greenhouse gas emissions
(GHG) and lifecycle emissions are approximately 10-25% of this (Anderson and
Thornback, 2012). Construction phase and embodied emissions are an increasingly
significant proportion of overall emissions (Heinonen et al., 2011).
Figure 1.
Lifecycle carbon
emissions of a
typical building2
1 Here low impact is used to denote materials that do not have a detrimental impact on the environment nor on
2 (http://etool.global.com/)
10. 10
Figure 2. Carbon Spike at Construction Phase3
Ireland has committed to the European Union’s legally binding Energy Performance of
Buildings Directives (EPBD) to reduce the energy use of buildings and corresponding
CO2 emissions (European Commission, 2012). All member states must achieve a 20%
reduction on the baseline (1990) level but, like most countries, Ireland’s measures to
reduce emissions only focus on the operational stage (exemplified in Figure 1 showing
the lifecycle carbon emissions of a typical building) even though a significant carbon
spike occurs pre-occupancy (Figure 2). International studies suggest that the
embodied energy of a building may be far greater than the operational energy:
“A study of the energy use of Swedish low-energy buildings found that the initial
energy embodied in a one family home accounted for more than 40% of the whole-life
energy requirements over a 50 years life span (Thormark 2002). Rawlinson and Weight
(2007) suggest that in the UK the embodied energy in complex commercial buildings
may be equivalent to 30 times annual operational energy use. At the same time Sturgis
and Roberts (2010) suggest that this accounts for 45% of the whole life-cycle carbon of
its structure.” (McLinden, 2015)
In addition, the proposed The Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill (Irish
Government, 2015) does not contain binding medium and long term targets for
emissions reduction (McGee, 2015).
1.2 Beyond Operational Energy
The terms “energy efficient” or “low or zero energy” do not necessarily denote
sustainability. Sustainable construction can be defined as that which addresses the
ecological, social and economic issues of a building by considering reduced resource
consumption, reuse & recyclability of resources, protection of nature, elimination of
toxins, life cycle assessment and quality (Kibert 2008). Ireland’s building regulations
don’t address the majority of these criteria, and the energy efficiency standards do not
consider embodied energy.
The present concentration on energy use of buildings has shifted attention from the
main issue, which at a macro level, is to prevent catastrophic changes to the planet
3 (Heinonen et al., 2011)
11. 11
and life that exists here. Serious environmental impacts in terms of climate change,
local toxic pollution, resource depletion and ecological decline result from the
production of materials that are derived from fossil fuels directly, such as plastics,
foams and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), or that require large amounts of energy (often from
fossil fuels) to process, e.g. concrete and steel,.
In contrast, "low impact construction" prioritises use of building materials from natural
sources (referred to in this thesis as NBMs) having low impact on environmental &
occupant health and low energy use, embodied energy and carbon, greenhouse gas
emissions, resource consumption, and life cycle cost. Along with lower impacts,
further benefits of NBMs include exceptional performance in regulating moisture and
temperature, breathability, hygroscopicity, thermal insulation capacity, durability (when
installed correctly) and acoustic attenuation.
1.3 Current Practice in Ireland - Mainstream Manufacturing &
Construction
Data is available for the volume and value of the construction industry, although not
specifically for each construction material or product manufactured and used in Ireland.
1.3.1
Irish
Construction
statistics4
• the construction industry is still very slow in comparison with pre-2008: output was
€11 billion in 2014 with 110,000 employed compared to €38 billion in 2007 (440,000
workers)
• the volume of building & construction in the first quarter of 2015 was up by 1.4% on
2014, with the annual change in value +7%
• however construction is only 6.9% GNP (below sustainable level of 12%) (Society of
Chartered Surveyors of Ireland and DKM Economic Consultants, 2015)
• according to the CIF, the industry is not meeting the demand for housing, current or
future: 11,016 dwellings were built in 2014 against 25,000 required to meet
demographic needs (ESRI)
• the downturn resulted in loss of many skilled craftsmen, designers and site
management
1.3.2
Mainstream
Manufacturing
&
Production
of
Building
Materials
&
Products
• current production of building materials in Ireland is primarily limited to those with high
embodied energy & environmental impact including cement & concrete, coatings and
plastic pipe
• members of the Building Materials Federation in Ireland manufacture mostly high
impact building products - Kingspan, Gypsum Industries, Aerobord, Tegral Building
Products, Irish Cement, Roadstone, Cemex, Wavin, Dulux, Ronseal among others (see
Figure 3 (BMF, n.d.)).
4
data from the Construction Industry Federation (CIF), the Central Statistics Office (CSO), the Society of
Chartered Surveyors of Ireland (SCSI), the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Building Materials
Federation (BMF) and the Bruce Shaw partnership
12. 12
Figure 3. Statement from BMF website5
• Ireland has a trade surplus, with exports greater than imports but many building
products are still imported.
• Recent journalistic reports indicate that there is active lobbying by both the
Construction Industry Federation and the concrete industry against higher
standards of construction (Antonelli, 2015a) (Antonelli, 2015b) and that such
industry has a powerful influence on housing development (Winston, 2007, p. 68).
1.4 Current Practice in Ireland – Natural, low impact
Manufacturing and Construction
Despite efforts to confirm the proportion of low impact construction within the overall
construction output in Ireland, no published data was available for this study. There
appears to be a lack of information regarding this market presumably due to its
perceived fringe status.
Although mainstream building materials produced in Ireland are not NBMs, a few
materials can be sourced here. For example, stone and slate is quarried and used in
buildings throughout the country, and there are several lime producers. In 2013, 3.05
million cubic metres of roundwood was produced, 90% of Irish panel products (MDF
and OSB) and 60% of sawn timber were exported, and 67% of the Irish market
(construction, pallet/packaging and fencing) was supplied by homegrown sawn
softwood (4% by sawn hardwood) (O’Driscoll, 2015).
Locally excavated earth is used for cob construction and straw is harvested for cob
and strawbale construction, both methods gaining popularity in Ireland.
1.4.1
Suppliers
of
imported
natural
building
materials
in
Ireland
Currently there are several NBM suppliers in Ireland, who import natural products and
materials. Ecological Building Systems (EBS), is the main supplier of natural building
products in Ireland. The company was established in 1992 and has seen significant
growth since 2000. According to Niall Crosson, Senior technical engineer at EBS,
“customer demand is increasing based on more education and awareness. Legislation
is also driving specifiers to high performance natural materials. These all need to be
backed up with good technical support/training, which we provide at our training
centre.” (Crosson 2015, pers.comm.)
Crosson estimates that approximately 1% of the materials used in construction in
Ireland are natural, which seems especially low considering the availability of raw
5 (www.bmf.ie)
13. 13
materials. All of the NBMs sold by EBS in Ireland are imported from Germany or the
UK.
Other suppliers of natural materials include the Traditional Lime Company (lime, natural
paints, clay plaster), Hempire (hemp building products, clay plaster) and Stoneware
Studios (lime & clay products).
The timber product industry for construction is developing, though far from equal to
the scale of the masonry industry. Donal Magner of the Wood Marketing Federation
believes the problem is the lack of third level timber engineering programs and
technical college courses in timber technology, “the cross-laminated timber industry
could work here in Ireland. We could grow spruce appropriately for use in this industry.
We need more expertise in this field but there aren’t enough educational opportunities
here to create the workforce.” (pers.comm. D Magner 30.06.2015)
In summary, most of the natural materials & products used for construction in Ireland
are grown, harvested, processed and manufactured outside of Ireland.
1.5 Focus of this research
The main research question that this thesis addresses is:
What are the perceived barriers to increasing the use of low impact natural building
materials on the island of Ireland? In order to address this question it is necessary to
consider the following subquestions:
• is there a general reluctance to use NBM? to supply NBM?
• how do attitudes, knowledge, experience, perception of professionals/practitioners
compare with those of the end-users/occupants?
• what is the influence of government, regulations and economic constraints?
• what other influences affect potential users?
Several different levels of barriers that must be addressed in order for NBMs to gain a
wider market share emerged from this research. Some of these can be resolved with
the development of increased awareness and knowledge through education. Many of
the barriers identified were found to be interrelated and advances in one area may
trigger advances in another.
However the work also identified deeper systematic challenges that will require
fundamental changes to societal values, government, industry and the doctrines of
lenders and insurers in Ireland.
14. 14
1.6 Aims, Objectives & Methodology
Table 1 outlines the aims objectives and specific methodologies that form the core of
the research that was undertaken.
Table 1. Aims, Objectives and Methodologies
Aim Objective Research Method
Outline current construction
practice in Ireland
Gather data and feedback regarding
current construction practice in Ireland
from industry professionals, relevant
researchers, construction
organisations, self-builders
Desktop study
interviews via email & phone
Set out Ireland’s response to
EU energy performance
directives
Provide summary of strategy to
combat climate change
Desktop study
Point out the limitations of
current strategy in face of
climate change
Detail the relationship of buildings, the
environment and occupant health
focussing on the environmental impact
of construction
Desktop study
Highlight the benefits of
natural building – performance
& impacts
Outline scientific and academic
research on key performance
parameters which suggest the benefits
of building naturally; review studies on
environmental and health impacts of
buildings
Desktop study
Literature Review
Consider common attitudes to
the environment and
sustainability, and related
barriers to sustainable
construction
Assess previous studies on attitudes
to sustainable construction, and the
relevance of suggested barriers to the
present study
Desktop study
Literature Review
Describe the state of the art in
natural building in Ireland
Investigate current practice in
construction with natural materials
Desktop study
Literature Review
Draw up a preliminary list of
perceived barriers
Gather data and feedback regarding
attitudes & practice in Ireland from
industry professionals, end-users and
experts
Mixed Method Analysis &
Thematic Analysis
Online Survey:
construction industry
professionals
end-users
Interviews:
experts in natural building
academics
contractors
Review case studies in natural
building materials & methods
Apply the challenges that emerged
from qualitative analysis to case study
projects to determine barriers and how
they were overcome
Interviews
Desktop study
Site visits
Establish the key barriers to
increasing the use of natural
building as a mainstream
approach
Synthesise qualitative data and case
studies to arrive at conclusions on
barriers, according to level of difficulty
and intensity
Desktop study
Propose strategies to
overcome barriers
Present strategies for overcoming
challenges to natural building
Desktop study
Identify the impacts of the
strategies and beneficiaries of
the study
Evaluate the effect of these proposals
on building construction in Ireland and
who will benefit from this study
Desktop study
15. 15
1.7 Contribution to knowledge
This study is of benefit to several groups and fills a research void in relation to the
critical need for low impact building in Ireland: manufacturers and suppliers, and those
considering investment in a green product industry in Ireland; designers, builders and
specifiers considering the use NBMs; those considering a building project, both
domestic and non-domestic; government, to encourage revision of policy &
regulations; insurance companies and banks, to indicate public attitudes to low impact
building and the recognition of high standards that competent industry professionals
will adhere to in the creation of such buildings.
1.8 Research scope & Restrictions
1.8.1
Definitions
As there are many interpretations of the term natural building several definitions have
been synthesized to create the term “natural building material” for this study.. Some
participants felt that there has been a misuse of terms such as “ecological”,
“sustainable”, and “green” over the past decade so that they are reduced to
“greenwash”. Further, it can be argued that “natural” can be anything that is derived
from the earth including concrete. Therefore the term used throughout this thesis is a
synthesis of definitions from Kibert (2008), Woolley (2006 & 2013), Magwood (2014)
and Smith (2010). In this work a natural building material is defined to be one whose
embodied energy from cradle to grave (to cradle) is minimal, and whose production,
use and disposal has a low impact on the environment and occupant health, use less
energy and produce less greenhouse gas emissions, resource consumption and life
cycle cost.
1.8.2
Scope
of
Research
This dissertation is a study of attitudes, knowledge and practice across the island of
Ireland regarding natural building materials. The topic is vast and only a limited number
of aspects can be covered within the scope of this dissertation. Therefore, it does not
attempt to present an in-depth study of performance parameters or a comprehensive
analysis of energy use and CO2 emissions of the construction industry. Rather it
focuses on identifying the challenges to the mainstream uptake of natural building
materials and methods. For this reason a qualitative analysis methodology is used. The
following flowchart provides a roadmap of the study (Figure 4).
16. 16
Figure 4. Roadmap of Boundaries
Mainstream
Industry
CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS &
PRODUCTS
IRELAND INTERNATIONAL
BuildingsIndustry Transportation Agriculture
Embodied
energy/CO2
Pre-Use
Embodied
Energy/CO2
Post-Use
Operational
Energy/CO2
Construction
& Building Fabric
M & E systems
Natural Low Impact
on Environment &
Health
Conventional/High Impact
on Environment &
Health
Barriers Drivers
End-user/
Occupant
Construction
Professional
architect engineer
builder supplier
manufacturer
Awareness Knowledge Attitude Experience
Regulations Standards
Government
Societal
Culture/Tradition
17. 17
1.9 Structure of thesis
The following chapter examines existing research on the need for alternative low
impact choices in building materials, the performance, environment and health benefits
of NBMs (and the impacts of standard construction) and current attitudes to
sustainability and the environment. Current practice in natural building in Ireland is
discussed. A lack of Irish research on barriers and solutions to increasing the use of
NBMs is identified.
Chapter 3 then describes and justifies the use of mixed method analysis (quantitative
and qualitative analysis of surveys & interviews) as a way to examine the current
position of construction industry professionals and end-users to reveals key barriers to
NBM uptake.
In Chapter 4, a study is presented which seeks to establish the main perceived barriers
for construction industry professionals and end-users. This study is comprised of a
detailed survey of both professionals and end users and also a series of interviews
with NBM experts. Using thematic analysis and mixed methods a series of barriers is
identified from the gathered data.
Chapter 5 presents a series of case studies. These examined four projects that made
extensive use of NBMs in order to ascertain whether the barriers identified in Chapter
4 were encountered in practice and where this was the case what solutions were
developed to overcome them.
Following from this, Chapter 6 then draws together the key perceived barriers from
each sample group comparing them with the expert and case study feedback.
Hypotheses are proposed on the key challenges to the uptake of NBMs. The chapter
concludes with recommendations for overcoming the barriers in Ireland.
Finally in Chapter 7 a summary of the key findings of the research is presented.
Limitations of the methodology are discussed. Possible solutions to overcome the
identified barriers are presented and further work to extend the analysis is proposed.
18. 18
Chapter Two Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This dissertation investigates the barriers to the increased use of natural building
materials (NBMs) in Ireland. To demonstrate the scope of previous research that
would be relevant to the topic it was necessary to investigate a variety of areas. These
are outlined in Figure 5. Although this thesis focuses on the island of Ireland it was
necessary to draw on data from the UK owing to a lack of prior work in this area.
Figure 5. Relevant Research Flowchart
2.2 Why should we build with NBMs?
Energy
Use,
Carbon
emissions
and
the
Embodied
energy
of
buildings
Although NBM expert Neil May argues in the Good Homes Alliance critique of the BRE
Green Guide (May, 2009) that our understanding of the embodied energy (EE) and
carbon (EC) of buildings is still poor, much research has been done to quantify the
lifecycle impacts of buildings in this area. Hinnells et al. claim that the energy used by
buildings in the UK accounts for 47% of overall CO2 emissions, 90% in use and 10%
as embodied energy (cited in Goggins et al., 2010). Energy used during the life cycle
of standard buildings contributes considerably to GHG emissions. Monaghan et al.
discuss the EC and EE in housing, demonstrating the EC/EE difference between
standard cavity wall construction methods and prefabricated timber frame low-energy
methods (Monahan and Powell, 2011). Emissions from the transport of construction
products and materials to Ireland is a major contributing factor in the overall EE & EC
of buildings, although these are not fully accounted for because international shipping
and aviation emissions are not included in the total inventoried emissions which covers
Relevant(research(for(a(study(of(
the(BARRIERS(to(the(uptake(of(
NATURAL(BUILDING(MATERIALS(
in(Ireland(
WHY(is(this(
IMPORTANT(
to(study?(
What(are(the(
BENEFITS((
of(NBMs?(
What(research(
has(been(done(
on(ATTITUDES(to(
SUSTAINABILITY(&(
the(ENVIRONMENT?(
PERFORMANCE( ENVIRONMENT(
HEALTH(
What(research(
has(been(done(on(
the(BARRIERS(to(
SUSTAINABLE(
CONSTRUCTION?(
What(is(the((
CURRENT(PRACTICE(
(of(NBM(construction(
in(Ireland?((
19. 19
territorial, production and consumption only (Klein, 2015, p. 79) (van Aardenne et al.,
2013).
Low
impact
materials
and
Products
The current efforts in Ireland to reduce energy use and emissions in buildings focus on
the operational stage only of a building’s lifecycle but since 10-25% of its emissions
come from harvesting, processing and transportation of building materials to site,
demolition and disposal, it is important to consider how these emissions can be
reduced. Woolley suggests using local low impact low carbon materials (referred to in
this thesis as NBMs) is a solution (Woolley, 2006) (Woolley, 2008).
2.3 The Benefits of NBMs
2.3.1
Performance
Extensive research on the performance of NBMs has been carried out by many
institutions and research groups in the UK and overseas. Tests carried out by the
Lawrence et al. demonstrate the exceptional hygrothermal performance of hemp-lime
construction (Lawrence et al., 2012) and Mukherjee and McDougall determined that
hempcrete can prevent buckling and can carry some direct load (Mukherjee and
MacDougall, 2013). The superior thermal and structural properties of strawbale walls
and have been shown by Walker (Walker, 2004), Gross et al. (Gross et al., 2015) and
de Wilde et al. (De Wilde et al., 2010) and the satisfactory fire resistance of strawbales
walls by Ashour et al. (Ashour et al., 2011). Woolley’s Green Building Handbooks, and
publications Natural Building and Low Impact Building communicate the impacts of
NBMs and their in situ performance (Woolley et al., 1997)(Woolley, 2006)(Woolley,
2013); The Building Research Establishment (BRE) commissioned Woolley and
Bevan’s detailed report on the potential construction uses of hemp-lime (Bevan and
Woolley, 2008) as well as reports on best practice use of recycled & low impact
materials such as woodfibre .
In Norway, Gaia Lista et al have recently published the first of a three part report on the
the hygrothermal potential of wood to achieve true passive house performance (Gaia
Lista et al., 2014).
In Canada and the US, Chris Magwood, Clarke Snell, Frameworks, Jon Nunan, Daniel
Chiras and many others have spent decades testing, refining and modernising
methods of natural construction, in order to demonstrate the desirable performance of
straw, timber, and earth in buildings (Magwood, 2014)(Snell, 2005)(Kibert,
2008)(Racusin and McArleton, 2012)(Nunan, 2010).
2.3.2
Health
&
Environmental
Impacts
of
Buildings
Natural materials have been shown to have much lower environmental and health
impacts in numerous studies. Woolley discusses these in his books Natural Building
(Woolley, 2006) and Low Impact Building (Woolley, 2013) and is spearheading the
efforts to establish the NaturePlus standard of eco-certification in Ireland (NaturePlus
and Alliance for Sustainable Building Products, n.d.)
20. 20
Recent work on the positive effects of green buildings includes reports by McGraw Hill
Construction the World Green Building Council’s report on health, wellbeing and
productivity in office buildings, both extensive studies that assess how sustainability
features (beyond low carbon and resource efficiency) can affect employee experience
(Glenn et al., 2014)(Alker et al., n.d.).
Joseph Allen et al. of the Harvard School of Public Health also recently published
research on the positive health effects of green buildings particularly indoor air quality
and human health. He proposes “a framework for identifying direct, objective and
leading “Health Performance Indicators” for use in future studies of buildings and
health.” (Allen et al., 2015).
Researcher Melissa C. Lott has stressed the negative effects of energy efficiency
measures on public health (Lott, 2014). Bill McDonough and Michael Braungart
identified the many health risks of the materials and objects of our surroundings, such
as the toxic substances found in finishes which will contaminate indoor air
(McDonough and Braungart, 2009, pp. 37–42).
2.4 Sustainable Construction
2.4.1
Barriers
to
and
drivers
of
sustainable
construction
Previous research has explored the barriers to sustainable construction. Pitt et al.
established a set of barriers and drivers in their work to determine the factors that
promote or prevent sustainable construction practices (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Drivers and Barriers for Sustainable Construction6
Williams et al. investigated why a strong policy drive has not ensured sustainable
development in the UK, revealing that stakeholder indifference was the main reason
(Williams and Dair, 2007). However a Southwest Regional Assembly commissioned
report on barriers to sustainability (Baker Associates, 2006), found economic and
insurance reasons as the main barriers to sustainable building. This finding is
supported by a study by Häkkinen et al. from 2011 (Häkkinen and Belloni, 2011).
Woolley highlights further obstacles to the uptake of natural and renewable materials,
6
(Pitt et al., 2009)
21. 21
such as poor understanding of building physics, lack of data and research and weak
government policy among other reasons (Woolley, 2013).
The Irish Green Building Council conducted a study on the sustainability of materials
used in construction (Kirwan et al., 2013). This consisted of a survey of manufacturers
and suppliers as well as architects and other industry professionals. The findings
demonstrated a wide difference in knowledge and engagement with the environmental
sustainability of materials between manufacturers/suppliers and specifiers.
2.4.3
Strategies
to
increase
the
use
of
NBMs
There are a range of studies proposing strategies to increase the uptake of NBMs.
Walker at the University of Bath suggests prefabrication as a method to increase the
uptake (Walker, 2013). This solution is supported by Smith (Smith, 2010) and Kaufman
(Kaufmann and Remick, 2009) among others. Horman et al. propose construction
process improvements to deliver green buildings (Horman et al., 2006).
2.5 Current practice – natural building in Ireland
2.5.1
Ecological
Developments,
communities
and
organisations
One large scale eco-development exists in Ireland. Located in Cloughjordan, County
Tipperary, The Village7
is attached to an existing town and consists of approximately
130 housing plots on 67 acres. Members of the Village can purchase individual plots
on which to build houses in accordance with the Village’s ecological charter. It is run
by Sustainable Projects Ireland Limited (SPIL), a not for profit company composed of
125 members and a board of directors (Winston, 2012).
Figure 7. The Village, Cloughjordan
7 http://www.thevillage.ie/
22. 22
Other individuals and groups in Ireland are actively engaged in building with natural
materials, such as Mud and Wood8
(Earth Building, Sligo), The Hollies9
(cob and
strawbale, Cork), The Hemp Building Consultancy 10
(Hemp, Kerry), Ardnashee 11
(strawbale, Cork), Rock Farm Slane12
(strawbale, Meath) among others. There are
growing numbers of architects specializing in ecological design with natural materials
including Solearth Ecological Architecture13
, Gaia Ecotecture14
, Winkens Architecture15
,
Feile Butler/Mud and Wood, Miles Sampson Sustainable Architecture16
, and others.
Earth Building UK and Ireland (EBUKI) is a non-profit organisation set up to raise
awareness about earth building. They provide information, training and a database of
earth structures in the UK (the database of earth structures throughout Ireland and
Northern Ireland is in progress)17
. Feile Butler, Irish director of EBUKI writes extensively
on earth building, energy efficiency and many other aspects of natural building on the
Mud and Wood website (“News & Articles – Mud and Wood,” n.d.). Butler has made
extensive submissions for the public consultations on the energy assessment standard
and the energy efficiency directive in Ireland in relation to natural buildings (Butler,
2013a)(Butler, 2013b).
The Irish Timber Frame Manufacturers Association’s membership is growing although
current practice in Irish timber frame construction depends on mainly imported timber
and conventional (non-NBM) products and methods.
2.5.2
Research
projects
on
sustainable
building
and
NBMs
in
Ireland
In Ireland, the Cork Centre for Architecture Education at UCC spearheaded the NEES
Project 2011-2014 (Natural Energy Efficiency and Sustainability), in collaboration with
several other EU partners, to support the development of sustainable architecture. The
outcome of their research was a selection of best practice products and services as
well as 6 pilot case studies (“NEES project Results 2011 to 2014,” n.d.)(Empey, 2014).
NEES2 is about to start which will incorporate earth building training for the
construction industry among other programs18
.
2.6 Gaps in knowledge
This literature review shows that construction that employs NBMs (as defined in the
previous chapter) can reduce energy use and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions thus
diminish environmental impact, and that NBMs have exceptional performance and
health benefits. Precedent studies suggest the variety of factors influencing attitudes
to the environment and sustainability and highlights the barriers to sustainable
construction. Dispersed efforts towards ecological building in Ireland include
participation in an ongoing EU research project on sustainability in architecture.
8 www.mudandwood.com
9 http://thehollies.ie/
10 http://www.hempbuilding.com/index.shtml
11 http://ardnashee.com/
12 http://rockfarmslane.ie/what-is-ecotourism/the-ecobuild-project-strawbale-building/
13 http://www.solearth.com/
14 http://www.gaia-ecotecture.eu/#
15 http://www.winkens.ie/
16 http://www.milessampson.com/index.html
17 http://www.ebuk.uk.com/
18 http://www.neesonline.org/about/
23. 23
Nevertheless, there is an absence of academic research on the development of NBM
construction specific to Ireland and despite the small but dedicated community of
ecological architects and natural building practitioners, NBMs represent only a fraction
of the materials used in Ireland and natural building is still on the fringe of mainstream
construction.
24. 24
Chapter Three Methodology
The choice of methodology used in this dissertation was critical in order to achieve
acceptably thorough results since there is no precedent to such research in this area
to date. As such, and due to this lack of available research in the area along with the
complex nature of this topic, an innovative methodological approach was adopted,
namely Mixed Methods (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). This comprises of both
quantitative and qualitative elements, the former chosen due to the need for numerical
data concerning the levels of engagement with natural materials in Ireland currently,
and the latter chosen due to the somewhat exploratory nature of this thesis.
“Exploratory research tends to tackle new problems on which little or no previous
research has been done” (Brown, 2006, p. 43), thus the need for this type of research
design.
3.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the methodology used in this study. The key objectives of the
study were
• to gather data and feedback regarding current construction practice on the island
of Ireland
• to assess the understanding of the Irish construction industry and the public about
the relationship between climate change, energy use, CO2 emissions, buildings,
the environment and occupant health
• to gather data and feedback about attitudes to natural building materials on the
island of Ireland
• to determine perceived barriers to increasing the adoption of natural materials on
the island of Ireland
• to illustrate examples of natural building projects, their challenges and solutions,
using selected case studies
In order to capture the complexities of the topic, and because these research
questions and objectives are both broad and specific, the mixed method design
included data collection in the form of a survey/questionnaire and interviews. The
qualitative elements of the survey and the interviews were chosen to give voice to the
stakeholders and users and to allow any issues that could be unknown or
unacknowledged by the researcher to surface thus providing a more in-depth
understanding.
25. 25
3.2 Pilot Study
Several pre-survey interviews were conducted with academics and experts in natural
building.19
The interviewees were asked about their experience with natural building,
their perception of its barriers to growth and potential solutions for overcoming those
barriers.
The insight gained from these interviews provided the basis for the survey questions.
The survey was designed so that the questions would elicit a broad spectrum of
attitudes to, knowledge of, and practice with natural building materials and methods.
Two surveys were created, one for the construction industry (architects, engineers,
builders, quantity surveyors, energy assessors, developers) and one for end-users
(building occupants). Survey design guidance was sought from a research methods
expert at the University of Limerick, Ireland.20
In addition to general information on
attitudes, experience and practice, the intention was to determine if the participants
have had any frustrations in relation to NBMs and/or had suggestions regarding the
future of natural building on the island of Ireland.
The use of surveys and questionnaires as a methodology for the examination of
attitudes and practice regarding building and the environment has international
precedent. These techniques were used to good effect in a study by Kaiser et al. in
1999, where they examined ecological behavior, environmental attitude, and feelings
of responsibility for the environment (Kaiser et al., 1999). Axelrod and Lehman in 1993
employed a survey to look at the factors that guide individual action concerning
responses to environmental issues (Axelrod and Lehman, 1993). More recently, in 2010
Kokkarinen and Cotgrave chose a student population when they examined attidudes
towards the environment (Kokkarinen and Cotgrave, 2010). In 2013, Brennan and
Cotgrave worked on developing a measure of assessing attitudes towards sustainable
development in the built environment (Brennan and Cotgrave, 2013). While these
studies do not address the pertinent questions of this thesis, they do establish that
such research methods, survey designs, can be seen as best fit for present purposes.
19
The participants included: Michael Haslam (Solearth Ecological Architecture, Dublin) , Tom Woolley (Rachel
Bevan Architects, NI), Pete Walker (University of Bath School of Architecture), Mike Lawrence (University of Bath
School of Architecture), Jim Carfrae (University of Plymouth School of Architecture), Chris Magwood (Endeavor
Centre, Ontario, Canada) and Ann-Marie Fallon (Regeneration Partnership Sustainable & Passive House
Architecture)
20 Dr. Caitriona Kinsella (lecturer in Psychology and Research Methods at the University of Limerick, Ireland).
26. 26
3.3 Survey
3.3.1
Particpants
In Ireland, for the report “Measuring the Sustainability of Our Construction Products
and Materials” the Green Building Council surveyed manufacturers, suppliers and
specifiers to collect information regarding sustainable building products in use in
Ireland comparing the results to determine the contrasting attitudes between specifiers
and suppliers (Kirwan et al., 2013). This type of approach, including members of
different populations, allows for the development of an in-depth understanding of the
topic. For this reason it was decided that this study would also look at two different
populations when administering the survey, namely those working in the construction
industry and end-users.
3.3.2
Construction
Industry
Survey
(see
Appendix
A
for
complete
survey
questions)
The survey was issued via personal email and social media (facebook and LinkedIn) to
contacts in Ireland (ROI) and Northern Ireland (NI).
It was composed of four sections: 1) background, 2) knowledge, experience,
perception, 3) regulations, technical guidance, training and supply chain awareness, 4)
construction materials market, infrastructure, investment.
Construction Industry Survey Sample
Profession 25 total
Architect 16
Builder/contractor 4
Engineer 2
Energy assessor/engineer 1
Manufacturer/supplier 1
Academic (architecture) 1
Background statistics can be found in Appendix B.
3.3.3
Non-‐industry
end-‐user
Survey
The end-user survey (a shorter version of the industry survey) also had four sections:
1) background, 2) knowledge, experience, perception, 3) regulations, guidance, supply
chain, 4) market, infrastructure, investment.
The main objective of the end-user survey was to assess the extent of knowledge
about the environmental & health impacts of buildings and attitudes to the use of
natural building materials.
27. 27
End-user Survey Sample
Occupant status 26 total
Homeowner 14
Tenant (domestic) 8
Prospective homeowner 4
Background statistics can be found in Appendix B.
3.4 Interviews
In addition to the two surveys, extensive phone and email interviews were conducted
with industry professionals.21
The interviewees were asked about their experience with
natural building materials and methods of construction, whether they had engaged in a
natural building project, what they perceived as the main barriers to natural building
and what they believed were the solutions to overcoming these barriers. The following
is a list of NBM experts and practitioners interviewed for this research.
21 The use of interviews in this manner has precedent. For example Stevenson describes the use of qualitative
analysis in the form of interviews to determine that people have a tacit knowledge of the “ecological affordances”
offered by materials (Stevenson, 2006).
Interviewee Area Profession/Company Method of
interview
Niall Crosson supply Engineer
Ecological Building Systems
Phone
email
Edward Byrne supply Director
Traditional Lime Company
phone
Ian Pritchett (UK) Supply/construction Director
Greencore Hemplime Construction
phone
Feile Butler Eco architecture
Earth building
Mud and Wood
Earth Building UK and Ireland
Meeting
email
Duncan Stewart Eco architecture Architect
TV presenter Eco Eye
Phone
email
Sally Starbuck Eco architecture Gaia Ecotecture
RIAI Sustainability Task Force
Phone
email
Pat Barry Green building Director
Irish Green Building Council
phone
Donal Magner Timber and forestry Director
Wood Marketing Federation
phone
Simon Corbey (UK) Sustainable bldg.
research
Alliance for Sustainable Building
Products
email
James Byrne Natural construction Self-builder
Mechanical Engineer
Email
meeting
Fergal O’Malley Timber frame
Construction
Timbertech phone
Henry Thompson construction Contractor
Old Builders Company
phone
28. 28
Several individuals/organisations contacted declined the opportunity to contribute to
the study. These included:
• a representative of the Construction Industry Federation (CIF)
• a representative of the Building Materials Federation (BMF) of the Irish Business
and Employers Confederation (IBEC)
• a representative of the Department of the Environment Building Standards section
• a representative of the Bank of Ireland
• a representative of Ulster Bank
• a representative of AIB bank
• a representative of the Professional Insurance Brokers Association (PIBA)
• a representative of the Irish Timber Frame Association (ITFA)
• a representative of the Irish Association of Self-builders (IASB)
• representatives of Green Building Councils in Europe
For the purposes of this study, the thesis refers to the “island of Ireland” since survey
results and interviews included participants from both the Republic of Ireland and
Northern Ireland.
Interviews carried out via email were verbatim data, while verbal interviews were hand-
noted during phone calls.
3.5 Case Studies
The final data gathering exercise, involved the exploration of four case studies of
projects that made extensive use of natural building materials and methods. Whether
the barriers identified from the survey and interview data analysis were experienced in
these projects was examined in a further attempt to pinpoint key challenges to NBM
construction. The projects included:
• a private house in Hemplime, Co. Longford 2011
• a private house in timber frame & wood fibre, Co. Wicklow 2010
• a private house in cob, Co. Sligo 2010
• a factory in poroton, Co. Wexford 2010
Each project demonstrated experience of some of the challenges identified by the
research findings and also examples of how the design team and/or client resolved
those difficulties.
29. 29
3.6 Technique of analysis
Mixed
Method
Approach
Both surveys and interviews were used to collect data in this study, and as such the
methods by which both sets of data were analysed reflect the mixed methods nature
of the research design.
Mixed method implies both quantitative (surveys) and qualitative (interviews) analysis.
By comparing quantitative and qualitative results along with existing data and
background reasons for this research, the analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of
methodological triangulation22
. The quantitative approach generated numeric totals of
responses to certain questions relating to barriers, and the qualitative approach
enabled a broader and more unsworn understanding beyond the numbers and facts.
The qualitative analysis used a thematic approach (described in the following section)
to highlight and code important words & phrases that emerged. These codes were
then collapsed into generalized themes. The themes became the set of criteria that
would be applied to selected case studies.
3.7 Validity of methodology
This thesis adopted a Mixed Methods approach to fully understand the barriers facing
both end-users and those working in the construction industry. As such, surveys were
administered that comprised the quantitative element, and survey comments and
interviews made up the qualitative element of this design. The numerical data from the
quantitative section was averaged and percentages found. The qualitative section was
anaylsed using Thematic Analysis (see next section for details). Figure 8 gives an
overview of how this research design moved from data collection to analysis and
interpretation.
22 Triangulation is a powerful technique that facilitates validation of data through cross verification from two or
more sources. In particular, it refers to the application and combination of several research methods in the study
of the same phenomenon.
• It can be used in both quantitative (validation) and qualitative (inquiry) studies.
• It is a method-appropriate strategy of founding the credibility of qualitative analyses.
• It becomes an alternative to traditional criteria like reliability and validity.
• It is the preferred line in the social sciences.
By combining multiple observers, theories, methods, and empirical materials, researchers can hope to overcome
the weakness or intrinsic biases and the problems that come from single method, single-observer and single-
theory studies. (“Triangulation (social science),” 2015)
30. 30
Figure 8. Process of Mixed Method Approach23
3.3.1
Thematic
Analysis
The method used to analyse qualitative data in this dissertation is called “Thematic
Analysis”. Braun and Clarke define this as a method for identifying, analysing, and
reporting patterns (themes) within data (Braun and Clarke, 2006). It minimally organises
and describes your data set in (rich) detail. The authors describe a step by step
method of carrying out this type of analysis which includes the following steps:
familiarizing with data, generating initial codes to identify interesting features,
searching for themes (initial thematic map), reviewing themes (developed thematic
map), defining and naming themes (final thematic map) and producing the report. The
authors stress the advantages of thematic analysis including its flexibility, facility to
learn & do, accessibility to beginners, usefulness as participatory tool, adeptness at
summarising a large body of data, and of particular importance for this study, the
possibility of unanticipated insights (Braun and Clarke, 2006). This final advantage
makes this method of analysis most useful in the current context, as it allows for an
exploratory approach to an under-researched topic.
23 (Diagram from Creswell 2012 cited in Opoku and Ahmed 2013)
31. 31
Chapter Four Survey and Interview Report and
Analysis
This chapter presents the survey results and the feedback from expert interviews. The
results of the collected data demonstrated a range in attitudes and knowledge in both
sample groups. Similarities emerged among the themes in both surveys, as well as
stark contrast in some responses. Data from the surveys and interviews was mapped
to themes of barriers.
The sample groups for each survey consisted of 25 construction industry professionals
and 26 end-users. Twelve NBM experts/practitioners were interviewed. The complete
list of questions of the Construction Industry survey can be found in Appendix A. The
end-user survey questions are similar and thus not included.
4.1. Quantitative Results
4.1.1
Construction
industry
Survey
Results
4.1.1.1
Section
One:
Attitude,
knowledge
&
awareness
In Section One participants were asked a series of questions that dealt with awareness
of the impact of buildings in Ireland on climate change, the attitude to natural low
impact buildings, and their knowledge of and experience using natural building
materials and methods. Training was surveyed in Section Two together with Technical
Guidance but is included in these results as part of Experience. Similarly, participants’
knowledge and attitude to the supply chain of materials was surveyed in Section Two
but it is included here in Attitudes and Awareness.
Awareness
The responses to the first questions suggest a poor overall awareness and
understanding of buildings’ energy use and CO2 emissions (Figures 9 & 10). The
supply chain was of low or no concern to most (Figure 11).
32. 32
Figure 9. Awareness of energy use & emissions (Industry)
Figure 10. Perceived composition of energy use & emissions (% Industry responding)
Figure 11. Supply Chain knowledge (Industry)
4%
4%
28%
28%
32%
Perceived Energy Use & Carbon
Emissions of Buildings in Total
National Energy Use (Industry)
5-10%
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40+%
33. 33
Attitudes
The most commonly chosen definition of natural building was biological and mineral,
then low environmental impact. But health, local sourcing and energy efficiency were
recognised as an aspect of natural building by less than a third of the participants
(Figure 12).
Figure 12. What "natural building" means (% Industry responding)
Knowledge
&
Experience
Participants mentioned a variety of natural building materials but commonly only
timber, stone and lime. Over two-thirds claimed to know of most material performance
criteria (Figure 13) and half had received training or had tried to teach themselves
about natural building materials or methods (Figure 14).
Figure 13. Familiarity with NBM Performance (% Industry responding)
60%
72%
4%
28%
20%
28%
28%
low env impact
biol & mineral
biological not mineral
low health impact
recycled
energy efficient
local
greenwash
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
What "Natural Building" means
(Industry)
34. 34
Figure 14. Previous training (Industry)
Sixty-eight percent of respondents indicated that they had used NBMs (Figure 15).
Those that had chosen not to use NBMs indicated the main reasons were lack of
experience and lack of knowledge of sources. Cost and lack of certification were less
of a problem (Figure 16) and one-third had had a negative experience with an NBM
project, or knew someone who had.
Figure 15. Experience with NBMs (Industry)
24%
16%
36%
16%
Any training in natural building materials or
methods? (Industry)
no
self taught
yes
no answer
68%
28%
4%
Experience with NBMs (Industry)
yes
no
a little
35. 35
Figure 16. Reasons for not using NBMs (% Industry respondents)
4.1.1.2
Section
Two:
Building
Regulations,
Technical
Guidance,
and
Environmental
Impacts
Section Two of the survey focused on current Irish Building Regulations, technical
guidance, computer simulation and product environmental information. The questions
were designed to elicit feedback on whether participants considered the Building
Regulations and guidance to be sufficient and whether the environmental impacts and
health should be considered.
Environmental
&
Health
Impacts
The first question in this section pertained to participants’ opinion on whether
environmental and health impacts of material choice were as important as energy and
CO2 impacts. Results indicated an almost even split between those who do and those
who don’t (Figure 17). 40% of respondents indicated that they were in favour of
regulations on the impacts and EPD requirements, although some had reservations
(Figures 18 & 19).
32%
32%
28%
16%
4%
12%
0%
12%
16%
24%
4%
lack knowledge of sources
lack experience
cost
unsuitability
complexity
non-durability
health
distrust
nonconventional
lack of certification
lack of time
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Reasons for not using NBMs (Industry)
36. 36
Figure 17. Importance of health & environmental impacts (industry)
Figure 18. Opinion re enforced regulations on impacts (Industry)
44%
12%
0%
16%
12%
8%
8%
4%
Importance of Health & Environmental Impacts:
equal to energy & CO2 impacts?
(Industry)
agree important 1
2
3
not sure 4
5
6
disagree not important 7
no answer
40%
28%
12%
8%
4%
8%
0%
4%
Should there be enforced Building Regulations on
Health & Environmental Impacts? (Industry)
agree 1
2
3
not sure 4
5
6
disagree 7
no answer
37. 37
Figure 19. Should EPDs be mandatory (Industry)
Influence
of
Regulations
Results on the perceived effectiveness of Part L of the Building Regulations on energy
performance and CO2 emissions indicated that more respondents thought they
weren’t, although 33% were satisfied.
Responses on the amendments to the Building Regulations (BCAR 2014) regarding the
influence on material specification and compliance certification suggested a majority
would be willing to certify NBM projects. However this legislation has since been
repealed (taking effect in Sept 2015). Responses on product certification are briefly
discussed in Section 4.2.1.
Technical
Guidance
Responses suggest a consensus that there is not enough official technical guidance
that Approved Technical Details for NBM construction should be included in the
Building Regulations Technical Guidance Documents. (Further discussion in Section
4.2.1)
Computer
Simulation
The results regarding on reliability and usefulness of building simulation were
inconclusive
Nevertheless, most agreed they would adopt NBM materials and methods if the
buildings’ performance could be simulated well.
4.1.1.3
Section
Three:
Market,
Infrastructure,
Investment,
Lenders
and
Insurance
The final section collected the participants’ views on the potential market for an Irish
industry manufacturing natural building materials & products, on why NBM costs more
than conventional materials, about what strategies the government could implement to
38. 38
increase uptake, finishing with the participants experience of lending bodies and
insurers.
Industry
potential
for
NBMs
The majority of participants thought that Irish industry producing NBMs would have a
market that they would use the products and materials manufactured although many
said it depended on cost (Figure 20).
Figure 20. Support of Irish NBM industry
Cost
72% of participants felt that limited production influences the price of NBMs. Over one
half also thought specialist fabrication was an influence. Similarly 48% or respondents
felt that importation costs increased prices (Figure 21).
Figure 21. Perceived reasons for higher cost of NBMs (Industry)
0%
0%
0%
20%
24%
8%
44%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
definitely not
2
3
not sure
5
6
absolutely
no answer
Would you support a new NBM industry by specifying
their products? (Industry)
48%
28%
72%
56%
importation costs
exoticism
limited production
specialist fabrication
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Rating of the reasons for the (perceived) higher cost of
NBMs? (Industry)
39. 39
Government
Most (%) of those surveyed thought the government should actively encourage the
natural building industry, although there are strong opinions against government
involvement amongst the minority (%). This is discussed further in the Qualitative
Results (see section 4.2.1).
Lenders
and
Insurers
Few respondents (less than 8%) indicated having experience with either lenders or
insurers on a NBM project. However participants gave reasons for the reluctance to
fund or insure NBM buildings, which this is presented in the qualitative results (see
section 4.2.1).
40. 40
4.1.2
End-‐User/Occupant
Survey
Results
4.1.2.1
Section
One:
Attitude,
knowledge
&
awareness
Awareness
End-users appear to have a limited awareness of the impact of buildings on overall
energy use and CO2 emissions (Figure 22). However more of them recognised the
range of constituents making up that energy use than in the construction industry
survey (Figure 23).
Figure 22. Awareness of energy use & emissions of buildings (End-users)
Figure 23. Perceived composition of energy use & emissions (% End-users responding)
Similar to the previous survey, knowledge of the supply chain is generally poor (Figure
24) although almost one quarter did not answer.
0%
27%
31%
23%
12%
8%
Perceived Energy Use & Carbon Emissions of
Buildings in Total National Energy Use (End-
User)
5-10%
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40+%
no answer
41. 41
Figure 24. Knowledge of Suppy Chain (End-users)
Attitudes
Most participants thought low environmental impact best defines “natural building”
and two-thirds thought biological and mineral. In contrast to the industry answers,
energy efficiency was important for more than half followed by health impact (Figure
25). This is discussed further in Section 4.2.2.
Figure 25. Meaning of "natural building" (% End-users responding)
Knowledge,
Experience
&
training
More natural building materials were listed than in the industry survey (Figure 26) but it
is unclear as to whether they had used those materials, and only a quarter said they
42. 42
had some experience. Lack of experience (on the part of themselves or their building
contractor) was the top reason for not using NBMs by over half, and lack of knowledge
on sourcing the NBMs by one third. Cost, lack of certification and non-conventionality
were not significant but perceived non-durability was selected by 12% (Figure 27). Five
respondents had negative experiences with NBMs (comments in section 4.2.2).
Figure 26. Known NBMs (% End-Users responding)
Figure 27. Reasons for not using NBMs (% End-users responding)
35%
54%
8%
0%
4%
12%
4%
0%
8%
8%
0%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
lack knowledge of sources
lack experience
cost
unsuitability
complexity
non-durability
health
distrust
nonconventional
lack of certification
lack of time
cost of expertise
Reasons for not using NBMs (end-user)
43. 43
Over two thirds of the end-users claimed to be familiar with the performance criteria of
building materials, and particularly the concept of thermal insulation, acoustics and
breathability (Figure 28). Almost half said they had had some form of training.
Figure 28. Familiarity with NBM performance (% End-user responding)
4.1.2.2
Section
Two:
Building
Regulations,
Technical
guidance
Environmental
&
Health
Impacts
Most of the end-users believed that environment and health impacts are as important
as those of energy and emissions and they also felt that there should be enforced
regulations on this in the Building Regulations (Figures 29 & 30) (further discussed in
Section 4.2.2). Some indicated that Environmental Product Declarations from
manufacturers for materials and products should be mandatory (Figure 31).
Figure 29. Importance of Health & Environmental Impacts (End-users)
85%
0%
12%
4%
Importance of Health & Environmental
Impacts: equal to energy & CO2 impacts
(end-user)
yes
no
maybe
no answer
44. 44
Figure 30. Opinion on enforced regulations on impacts (End-users)
Figure 31. Should EPDs be mandatory (End-users)
Technical
Guidance
Most users answered that they didn’t know what technical guidance was available.
45. 45
4.1.2.3
Section
Three:
Market,
Infrastructure,
Investment,
Lenders
and
Insurance
Industry
Potential
The respondents thought that there would be a market for Irish NBM industries and
over half said they would support this to some degree (Figure 32). Similarly, almost
90% thought that the Irish government should support the development of NBM
industry (Figure 33).
Figure 32. Support for Irish NBM industry (% End-users responding)
Figure 33. Opinion on government support for NBM industry (End-users)
0%
0%
8%
15%
19%
8%
46%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
definitely not 1
2
3
not sure 4
5
6
absolutely 7
no answer
Would you support a new NBM industry by
specifying their products? (end-user)
46. 46
Cost
Most respondents saw limited production as the main driver behind the higher cost of
NBMs, followed by specialist fabrication (Figure 34).
Figure 34. Opinion on cost influence of NBMs (End-users)
Lenders
&
Insurers
Very few had had experience with lenders or insurers on a NBM project although most
were very opinionated about this subject (discussed in Section 4.2.2).
19%
27%
73%
62%
0%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
importation costs
exoticism
limited production
specialist fabrication
economy of scale
nonNBM monopoly
Rating of the reasons for the (perceived) higher
cost of NBMs? (end-user)
47. 47
4.1.3
Comparison
of
results:
similarities
&
differences
Some questions were posed to both groups, although in some cases, fewer end-users
responded usually due to the technical nature of the question. Those answers that
achieved a high response rating are compared below.
Section
One:
Attitude,
Knowledge
&
Awareness
• The responses indicate that the construction industry has a better awareness of
the contribution of embodied energy and carbon of buildings within the overall
energy use & carbon emissions in Ireland. At a minimum, the responses indicate
that more than half of the industry participants recognized the role of buildings in
overall energy use.
• In contrast almost 60% of end-users believe that buildings are responsible for
30% or less of the overall energy use/carbon emissions in Ireland. Nevertheless, in
both surveys less than 40% believed that buildings are responsible for more than
40% overall energy use/carbon emissions.
• Although supply chain might be considered the responsibility of the specifier, both
surveys questioned participants since end-users may be concerned about the
provenance of materials used in their homes and workplaces. Industry and end-
users claimed full awareness to the same degree (16% and 15% respectively) but
among those who chose ‘sometimes’, industry respondents were twice as aware
of supply chain as end-users and most end-users stated that they rarely knew the
supply chain.
• Regarding the term “natural building”, 96% of end-users felt low environmental
impact was a key element, compared to 60% for industry who felt that the
meaning of “natural building” had more to do with biological and mineral elements
(72%). Fifty percent of end-users also selected biological & mineral, low health
impact and energy efficiency. The most cited natural materials by industry
respondents were timber, stone and lime compared to timber, earth, strawbale
and stone by end-users.
• Both groups placed thermal insulation at the top of the list of familiarity with
material performance criteria, but there was a significant contrast on other familiar
criteria with end-users selecting in order: 1. acoustics & breathability, 2. durability,
3. air quality and 4. internal temperature regulation. The industry selection was: 1.
internal temperature regulation, 2. thermal mass & moisture regulation, 3.
breathability and 4. air quality.
• The main reasons for not using NBMs were similar (lack of knowledge of sources,
lack of experience) but only one end-user cited cost as a factor compared to 28%
of industry. Industry participants also selected lack of certification,
unconventionality, unsuitability and nondurability (albeit with less significance).
End-users only cited non-durability as a secondary reason.
Section
Two:
Building
Regulations,
Technical
guidance
• More than half of those interviewed in both groups indicated they thought
environmental and health impacts were as important as energy and emissions,
Specifically, results show that the end-users feel much more strongly about those
impacts (85% compared to 56% for industry). However the related question about
enforced regulations on environment & health impacts indicate equal agreement in
both surveys (>80%).
48. 48
• Although the end-user response rate was somewhat lower on the EPD question at
62%, the industry responded with 72% agreeing there should be mandatory EPDs
against 58% for the end-user group.
Section
Three:
Market,
Infrastructure,
Investment,
Lenders
and
Insurance
• Both groups believed that there could be an Irish natural building materials
industry, with end-users in agreement at almost 100%.
• Limited production and specialist fabrication were cited as the main influences on
cost for both, although more than twice as many industry respondents felt that
importation costs were also important (48%).
• Over 70% in both groups said they would support an Irish NBM industry to some
degree, although two of the end-user group responded negatively.
• Overwhelmingly industry and end-users thought that the government should
support the NBM industry to some degree but 8% of industry weren’t in
agreement and 8% of end-users answered conditionally.
• There was a very low response rate in both surveys to the questions regarding
money lenders and insurers, so the responses aren’t indicative of the wider
community.
4.2 Qualitative results from surveys and interviews
The written text from the surveys and feedback from interviews enhanced and
expanded on the quantitative results. First the text and feedback were compiled to
identify codes within the responses, these were then analysed to generate themes
(sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2).
This data was then organized according to the survey categories into thematic maps
(see example on the following page, Figure 4.35) in order to identify key barriers, which
are listed in Section 4.3.
50. 50
4.2.1
Construction
Industry
Survey
results
4.2.1.1
Perceived
Benefits
of
NBMs
Health
&
Comfort
Feedback from half of the industry participants indicated an awareness of the health
benefits of NBMs, in relation to indoor air quality, thermal and moisture regulation, lack
of chemicals and personal comfort in general:
“healthy”
“better house climate (moisture balance, heat retention etc.)”
“Better quality of life in the building.”
“Low-Zero toxic emissions/off-gassing”
“fewer harmful chemicals have been used in the manufacture of the building
product that you are specifying for use in a building where people are working &
living”
However, interestingly this contradicts the previous quantitative result in which only
28% believed that “natural building” meant lower impact on health.
Low
energy
and
carbon
footprint
Industry respondents also named low carbon and low energy footprints of NBMs,
which includes embodied energy and also energy performance. This aligned with their
generally good awareness of the impact of conventional Irish buildings in overall
energy use & CO2.
Low
environmental
impact
Interestingly, only one fifth of respondents referred to the environment using phrases
such as:
“Lower environmental impact”
“Environmental long term”
“ecological”
This may suggest a lack of appreciation for the connection between materials and their
effect on the environment.
In general the responses illustrated a focus on the benefits for creating and occupying
buildings, and less on the benefits beyond the building.
51. 51
4.2.1.2
Perceived
Disadvantages
Cost
For industry respondents, excessive cost was the most commonly named problem
with NBMs although in a separate quantitative question only 28% indicated that cost
was a reason they had not used a natural building product.
Later in the survey, some participants expanded on what they believe are the reasons
for the higher cost of NBMs:
“From the moment a material is no longer standard or is not manufactured in
large enough volumes it becomes expensive.”
“there is the inertia of markets that are driven by other global and supplier chain
agendas.”
“NBM Practitioners are in short supply, training is not consistent. And
unpractised and unqualified practitioners lead to costly mistakes and bad
publicity that are off putting to customers that are considering using NBM.”
“transference of 'risk' to the wrong place (the architect) forces the issue.”
“high labour cost”
Lack of market for NBMs - small or no production output due to global supply chain
agendas and costly mistakes on NBM projects due to inexperience which all reduce
demand - is the main driver of cost, since “The materials mentioned must be
manufactured in large enough volumes.” Lack of client demand is cited as a reason for
the lack of market:
“No demand from clients, at least for as long as processed building materials
are cheap and readily available.”
The increased risk for specifiers and high labour costs were also seen as factors in the
higher overall cost of building with NBMs.
Potential
for
decay
A second perceived problem that was highlighted by almost one third of respondents
was that of the potential for decay and degradation, which would dissuade the
specifier:
“More likely to decay prematurely if not carefully detailed, constructed &
maintained”
“Also there is a particular weather condition in west of Ireland (very wet, driving
rain) which leads one to be cautious in specifying external finishes/details.
Some products might be fine for a less exposed climate/region and how they
would weather in Ireland poses a question. If a product is not widely used in this
region or a sample which has been exposed for a no of years is not available to
inspect it would lead a designer to be cautious in specifying.”
52. 52
“More susceptible to degradation from poor detailing or workmanship”
“maybe not as robust as more conventional materials”
“Reduced relative performance in certain instances relative to other materials”
Nevertheless, in a later question, only eight respondents admitted having or knowing
of a negative experience with NBMs, and only seven described the problem. Most
commonly damp and moisture ingress leading to rot had occurred. This appeared to
be caused by poor detailing and lack of ventilation. One person also mentioned failure
of thermal insulation due to an inexperienced construction crew.
4.2.1.3
Attitude
to
Environmental
&
Health
Impacts
Almost one third of respondents did not believe that the environmental and health
impact of material choice were as important to address as energy use and CO2
emissions. Some explained their answer. One architect sees the solution as a gradual
process:
“C02 targets are a more easily-definable starting point. It is difficult for
practitioners to tackle all issues at once, so there is a tendency to gradually
increase the scope of environmental and healthy design strategies over time, on
a project by project basis (sympathetic clients permitting!)”
Of those who explained their answer (both negative and positive responses), most did
think these impacts are equally important, but felt that they’re difficult to measure or
they don’t matter enough to clients to become significant. One respondent argued that
materials like steel and concrete may be high in energy and CO2 in production but are
inert once in use and can be recycled so counterbalance the impact on the
environment. The same person perceives a bigger problem, economic inequality, as
the driver for the lack of regard for environment and health impacts:
“The real issues are systemic and political - we have to remember, always, the
big picture. Buildings will not solve global politics, wars nor social problems
such as 1%/99% finance - that ultimately drives most people to take
unsustainable options due to relative poverty of resource and time.”
Thus, although there was a majority who did believe the impacts were equally
important, their integration process, available tools of measurement, level of end-user
interest and economic equality greatly influenced whether they were given equal
standing.
When asked if there should be a requirement to address those impacts in the Building
Regulations, 80% agreed. Those who commented said that for it to work, available
guidelines as well as a knowledge & awareness campaign would need to be set in
motion. It would also require strict enforcement via 3rd
party inspections. This
concerned one person who stated:
“Decisions should be mature and rounded, not driven by people (an
environmental 'police') who have only one narrow expertise and do not
53. 53
appreciate the problems.
We need to 'police' clients and politicians - not people further down the chain
with less resources and power (like architects and builders).”
However one person contributed a constructive idea:
“It should certainly be reflected - maybe a trade-off between embodied energy
vs. day-to-day energy usage would be practical.”
4.2.1.4
Regulations
Energy
performance
&
CO2
emissions
Forty per cent of the construction industry respondents felt to varying degrees, that the
current Building Regulations Part L (Conservation of Fuel and Energy) are not effective
on energy performance of buildings and corresponding CO2 emissions. Those who
elaborated cited several reasons: pressures from the client compromising energy
performance, lack of conscientiousness on the part of industry and end-user, lack of
3rd
party inspections, the challenge posed by renewable energy requirement of small
low energy buildings. Many just thought they needed fine-tuning but one person
declared that the passive house standard should be mandated.
Technical
Guidance
Over 50% of those surveyed felt that there isn’t enough official accredited guidance
available. However, there can be a problem with guidance material:
“The problem is with technical guidance for the use of materials in an Irish
environmental context. I find that some guidance can be problematic as it is
based on a Northern European or Continental European context.”
There were conflicting responses regarding suppliers:
“most suppliers appear to understand that designers require robust details and
certification”
“The quality of information provided by most suppliers is poor and very
fragmented. It takes time to find the information and ensuring its quality and
veracity.”
“I don't believe it should be the architects job to 'police' this - the architect
should be provided with good systems (from gov and suppliers) I don't believe
the systems are good because they are not integrated. Nor does one trust most
of the supply systems which are driven by economics in any case. Architects
can't be the suppliers police - that role has to be dealt with systemically”
Building Regulations Technical Guidance Documents (TGDs) are deemed poor, “very
little official guidance. TGDs made up of mostly outdated building practices at this
stage.”
54. 54
One respondent despaired at the inaccuracies in the TGDs:
“a good example is the U-Value of 600mm thick stone walls; in Ireland the
default position 2.1 is very low indeed; Historic Scotland has MEASURED
various forms of historic construction and finds these stone walls averaged at a
U-Value of 0.9 and 1.1 which makes all the calculations way off the perceived
thermal performance of historic structures”
Among the over 70% who thought it would be useful to have Acceptable Technical
Details (ATDs) for NBMs in the Building Regulations, many mentioned safety and
certainty for specifiers:
“ATDs for NBM would make NBM safer and more certifiable.”
“Understanding ATD as "best practice" this should extend across all materials.”
“to give builders/clients/certifers guidance and confidence in how to use these
materials correctly.”
“this would make it easier for designers to choose nbms and give them more
confidence in the performance aspect of the materials”
“It would help 'sell' the idea if there were 'standard' details with measured U-
values. It's really tedious to have to work this out when only the 'proper bodies'
have the authority”
One respondent was adamant that there should be no distinction between NBMs and
any other material, that all should be covered:
“I don't like the categorisation of NBMs/non-NBMs as an either/or option.”
Another person had a different perspective:
“This is difficult, as where would it stop? Each designer is able to 'tweak' details
using different design & different materials”
4.2.1.5
Environmental
Product
Declarations
Over 70% agreed with mandatory EPDs from manufacturers, mainly because this
would provide sufficient information for them to make an informed choice based on
environmental impacts. Those who disagreed claim that it would increase costs "and
not necessarily make for better buildings”. One stated that “minimum environmental
standards” would need to be “set down in the Building regulations” for this to be useful.
4.2.1.6
Material
&
Product
Certification
Although the questions pertaining to the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations
2014 are not relevant now, since BCAR is to be repealed (as of September 2015), it is
55. 55
useful to look at the attitudes to product certification expressed in the written text.
Many stressed that they would only use those with a CE marking, “certification and
compliance with building products directive not readily available in some cases
eliminating consideration of these products.”
4.2.1.7
Attitude
to
potential
NBM
market
There was consensus in agreement on the mainstream potential for various Irish
industry producing natural building materials/products with a range of suggestions
including natural insulation (woodfibre, hemp, sheeps wool, cellulose), lime render,
timber products, strawbales, hempcrete, clay block, biomass, flax, etc. One
participant saw great but unrealised potential:
“This is a lost opportunity. We have a large agricultural/timber industry which
provides ample raw materials and land to grow crops such as hemp. There is no
reason why we can't produce products like hempcrete, woodfibre board, lime
plasters, cellulose. I would also include foamglass in this mix as we have a large
supply of recycled glass and we need a suitable material for use below ground
level. All that is required is a small team of people with a vision and a source of
finance.”
Another suggested it would emerge organically:
“the idea that its a 'top down' situation is simply not true; most of those
promoting their use are doing it for personal and principled reasons; it will be a
'ground up' industry, and unselfconscious.”
Although 74% said they would support an Irish NBM industry, almost half had
conditional answers:
“It depends on performance & cost and alternatives.”
“If they were up to scratch of course. BUT House insurance is also a problem.”
“if certified and cost competitive”
4.2.1.8
Lenders
and
Insurers
Very few respondents indicated they had direct experience with banks or insurers,
however most agreed that the conservative nature of such institutions influences
attitudes to unconventional methods of construction.
“They want to protect their investments by sticking with standard, generally
non-organic (and therefore considered more durable) products & materials.”
Some suggested that the insurance companies are at the root of the problem, and
were only concerned about protection against risk represented by alternative
constuction. They exhibit a “lack of understanding of the changes in construction
methodology in the last fifty years.”
56. 56
“It comes down to certainty and certification; the institutions are totally conservative
and want guarantees for everything they fund now; pity they didn't take the same
attitude during the boom which is why it's most important that NBMs have all their
documentation”
“the only negative aspects are in other people's minds: banks and other institutions
who are funding projects are distrustful and want 'certification' and 'certainty'”
57. 57
4.2.2
End-‐user
Survey
Qualitative
results
4.2.2.1
Benefits
Health
and
Environmental
Impacts
According to over half of the end-users surveyed, the greatest benefits were believed
to be low health and low environmental impacts.
“probably healthier to live in, an overall 'feel-good' factor”
“I imagine they are less harmful to the environment in that processing of the
materials is reduced and less transport is probably required where materials can
be sourced locally. I also imagine that living spaces built from natural materials
would be more healthy living environments.”
Low
carbon
and
low
energy
footprint
Almost one third recognised the benefit of low carbon and low energy footprint.
Cost
A quarter of respondents indicated that lower cost was a benefit and some expanded
that this was due to lower transport, manufacturing and construction costs:
“Affordability”
“I think that carefully sourcing some local NBM can turn out to be a cheaper
option”
“cheaper building costs”
4.2.2.1
Disadvantages
Cost
Interestingly, cost was also a disadvantage for end-users. Cost was cited by 50% of
respondents, although only one person suggested a reason: “Until it is more
mainstream, there will always be a suspicion on perceived costs, 'experts' and a
cheaper less environmental option”. A related question later in the survey asked why
NBMs cost more, to which there were two replies:
“Rip off Ireland - anything out of the ordinary is always over-priced. Lack of
supply makes the seller more powerful. I think people that choose to build with
