Collectively our commitment to a net zero future has been established with the change of Federal Government earlier this year. However, the required metrics and targets to ensure carbon accountability for capital works projects are not yet legislated which means projects can continue with no accounting for either embodied or operational carbon. In the future, Embodied Carbon budgets, and Carbon Return on Investment calculations will be made on all projects. To facilitate these calculations, Project Managers will have access to accurate embodied carbon estimating guides (e.g., the equivalent of a Rawlinsons for carbon), or web 3.0 technology that facilities accurate tracking of embodied carbon through the supply chain, or the time to invest in first principle calculations for every project. Before these tools are widely available there are still three questions that Project Managers should be asking today as we move to a more conscious project practice in the built environment:
How is waste being measured and reduced?
The construction industry generates 44% of all waste generated in Australia and nearly half of that waste ends up in landfill. Landfills are a necessity — they reduce the amount of waste that makes it into the environment, they help to prevent disease transmission, and they keep communities clean, however the space the earth has for landfills is limited. In addition there are a number of issues with construction waste in landfill including contaminated soil, polluted waterways, impacted wildlife and plants, and even drinking water pollution.
In order to reduce the amount of construction waste going to landfill, Project Managers should implement the calculation and publication of waste metrics — both of the demolishment and the construction phase of the project. The act of measuring and reporting waste values waste reduction efforts alongside the other functions of the project rather than hiding it from consideration.
Waste Management efforts should be planned and documented at the outset of the Project. Waste Management Plan templates are ubiquitous online from State & Local government as well as Industry sources. Local Council resources should also be consulted for various local practices and policies — noting that waste management processes and facilities differ council to council and state to state.
Project Managers should monitor and evaluate the Project’s ability to achieve the Waste Management Plan, and use this information to set targets for future similar projects.
The mandating of national waste management targets that involve demolishment or refurbishment of existing projects can be problematic given individual project circumstances, past construction processes, legislation governing hazardous materials and various state differences. However, just because there is no set number to achieve does not preclude the conscious project manager from incrementally improving waste management activities and landfill diversion achieved. Landfill diversion will not occur unless Project Managers measure and report their waste metrics.
How will the project be disassembled?
Waste measurement and diversion from landfill requires recycling. However, recycling is a last century mitigation to construction projects and recycling alone will not be enough to overcome the amount of waste produced. All projects in the build environment must, in addition to planning the opening and operation, consider their end of life and consequently how the project will be disassembled.
The terms “Circular Economy”, “Materials Bank” and “Design for Disassembly” speak to the concept that the project’s output is only the first use of materials. For example a brick is used first in an exterior wall of a residential dwelling, and then reused in a garden retains wall when the house is beyond its useful life. Considering and designing the project for disassembly means that buildings and products are designed intentionally for material recovery, value retention, and meaningful next use.
Previously projects have been designed and built as if they will endure indefinitely and when they are past their useful life they are demolished and treated as waste. When a project considers disassembly in the design phase, it considers the likely lifetime of the building and makes design and material choices and construction (assembly) choices that eliminate waste with closed loops. I.e. when removed from its first site, it can be reused elsewhere.
A number of academic and industry publications have been authored on the challenges and opportunities of designing for the circular economy in the built environment. I haven’t found one that assures the reader it will be easy and a seamless transition. Notwithstanding the difficulties, equally true is waste disposal will cost more in the future than it does now.
By challenging the design for eventual disassembly, the project manager will find opportunities to improve the project's sustainability credentials. It will be easier in some layers of the project (like the fittings) to identify these opportunities. So start there. Designing for disassembly and future reuse is an investment in future projects, and will likely result in structures that are more flexible and maintainable over their first use as well as retained value at end of life.
Is the Return on Investment calculation broad enough?
In addition to waste, and future disassembly, Project Managers can broaden their Return on Investment calculations from purely financial to encompass resource return on investment. The concept of a Carbon Return on Investment is not a new metric in other areas of the economy. Such a calculation considers the forward carbon savings as a result of an initial carbon investment. It is currently possible, with the assistance of SMEs, to calculate the embodied carbon in built projects, but with inherently complex supply chains and without mandated embodied carbon budgets, it requires significant effort and time.
However, Project Managers can, when analysing projects for future operations assess the resource consumption of the project once complete. The purpose of the analysis is to ensure that the future project consumes less resources to operate compared to the current alternative. For example, does the new building consume less power than the current building? Does it include sensors and technology to further fine tune power usage once operational?
The Project Manager should conduct this analysis in addition to designing to meet local environmental codes and certifications. GreenStar and other similar ratings tools have resulted in more sustainable buildings, however they should not be seen as limiting what is possible, and the Project Manager should ensure that the Return on Investment calculation is broad and considers future resource consumption of the project, and of the occupants/users.
The broader ROI calculation acknowledges that there is some (unquantified) investment of our natural resources and embodied carbon in the project that will results in future reductions in consumption. It does not calculate the consumption of the project and its complex supply chains, however calculating the future resource use of our projects reminds us all that our collective natural resources are finite and our destination of a net zero economy is non negotiable.
Conclusion
As Project Managers we work for our clients and their businesses, we may have limited influence on project scopes and budgets. However, we can also bring to our practice conscious decisions and elements, like these three questions, to invest in the sustainability of our future built environment. We know that the rules and standards will change and we owe it to those who succeed us to ask these small questions today to benefit tomorrow.
image credit: Littlehampton Bricks on Pixels.com
A full list of referenced articles used in this post is available from the author.