ARCHITECTURE AND CARBON

Abstract

Sustainable designs in architecture have been rigorously explored by firms all over the world but the fundamental question of what constitutes a “green” design is still highly contested. As a response to this, industry players have, in the past few years, increasingly embraced the idea of using carbon footprint calculation to quantitatively measure the environmental impact of building design. Among architects in Singapore however, carbon footprint is still a rather novel idea and most are unclear about their level of involvement in the carbon footprint of a building. Hence, this study attempts to determine and illustrate the extent to which an architect can actually affect the carbon footprint of a building. In addition, this paper also seeks to present a version of carbon footprint assessment that is suitable for buildings used for educational purposes in Singapore. Consequently, the scope of this study covers all sources of carbon emission, directly or indirectly associated with the building investigated, within which aspects pertaining to that of architectural design are singled out for detailed analysis. In building the carbon report of this study for analysis, data was collected through a number of methods such as monitoring and reporting, questionnaires, surveys, interviews, direct inspections, direct measurement and record reviews. This paper follows the guidelines proposed by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for measuring and reporting an activity’s emissions. However, some information can only be derived by extrapolation from data collected. It is also not possible, due to limited time, to cover a large range of buildings for the carbon study. Nevertheless, this study has revealed an important finding that is crucial to the field of sustainable design. Contrary to popular belief that the architect plays a pivotal role in the carbon emission of his design, this study has revealed that major contributors to the carbon emissions of the building, at times, can have only a remote connection to the work of the architect. This might lead to two possibilities: either looking elsewhere for the solution to high carbon emission problems, or redefining the role of the architect.