The researchers analysed three reference houses when using both biobased and conventional building materials. In all cases, the environmental impact of biobased materials was found to be lower, -not only through the materials themselves, but also through indirect effects. ‘With biobased construction, the foundations can be lighter because these materials are less heavy than concrete. This significantly lowers the overall environmental impact,’ says project leader Martien van den Oever (researcher at Wageningen Food & Biobased Research).
The relative difference between biobased and conventional materials is even greater than might appear at first glance. This is because a number of activities and materials are the same for both types of materialisation. For example, 25-50% of the total MPG is determined by components like (electrical) installations and site layout, which are similar for both biobased and conventional construction projects.Â
Biogenic carbon
Although research shows clear benefits of bio-based construction, these are not yet recognised in regulations. The environmental impact of building materials is dealt with at national and European level. Both ignore a crucial factor such as biogenic carbon storage` (CO2 recently removed from the atmosphere) in the environmental impact calculations. Besides that, the Netherlands includes some less reliable impact categories in the calculations that the EU provisionally excludes. ‘It is extraordinary that the Netherlands accepts uncertainties but leaves out a well-measurable factor like carbon storage,’ argues Van den Oever. An unambiguous method would accelerate the acceptance of biobased materials and contribute to a more sustainable construction sector.
The study on the impact of biobased versus conventional construction was conducted by Wageningen Food & Biobased Research in collaboration with 17 partners. The Dutch Top Sector Agri-Food funded the research.
Read the full news release on the WUR website.
Image: Ponsulak/Shutterstock
