Interlinked Sustainability Aspects of Low-Rise Residential Family House Development in Slovakia

Abstract

This paper compares the sustainability aspects of three family houses according to the Slovak building environmental assessment system (BEAS). Various categories of family houses were evaluated, including site selection, project planning, building construction, indoor environment, energy performance, and water and waste management. Based on the results, Family Houses 3 and 2 are certified as BEAS SILVER, with scores of 2.46 and 2.01, respectively. Family House 1 is certified as BEAS BRONZE, with an overall score of 1.44. The results show, not only the importance of the site in terms of availability, connectivity to the network and the potential to use renewable energy sources, but also the importance of the design and construction of the building, including the application of environmentally friendly building materials, ensuring the quality of the indoor environment and the energy efficiency of the building. The aims of this study were to highlight the current trend in the design and construction of low-rise residential family houses in Slovakia and to identify gaps in the design and construction of key sustainability aspects through the existing building environmental assessment system. In the future, many low-rise residential family houses will be assessed to modify and validate BEAS.

Verification of building environmental assessment system for houses

“…The main fields are divided into individual indicators, where each indicator is assigned a certain weight of significance and is defined by the purpose of evaluation and by a criterion according to which the assessment is made. The methodology and criteria for evaluating the individual indicators in individual fields (A-F) are presented in the studies [12,13].…”

“…This field assesses site selection in relation to distance to roadtraffic infrastructure, city amenities and natural green spaces as well as the occurrence of transport infrastructure in the construction site. The buildings were evaluated for their appropriate architectural design and compatibility of the urban design with local cultural values in given area [13]. In Figure 2, we can see the summary of results of indicators A1-A14.…”

“…This field of assessment system deals with building product environmental labelling, use of local, recycled, natural materials in the building as well as the radioactivity of the building materials. Primary energy embodied in building materials, global warming potential and acidification potential are assessed within the building life cycle [13]. A summary of results of individual indicators B1.1-B2.2 is presented in Figure 3.…”

“…These factors derive from the structural design of the building. This field of the assessment system is divided into 10 subfields in which there are assessed indicators such as thermal comfort during the heating season and cooling season, ventilation, noise attenuation, daylighting and artificial lighting, the materials used in the building and the transfer of pollutants [13]. A summary of the results of individual indicators C1-C10 is presented in Figure 4.…”

“…Field D evaluates strategies of operational energy as energy for heating and domestic hot water, mechanical ventilation and cooling, light intensity control using artificial light sources and further strategies using active systems of renewable energy sources and energy management. These strategies, in connection with smart control of buildings, also reduce a building's energy use [13]. The family house FH3 achieved the highest score (5) for indicator D1.1 because it belongs to energy class A for heating according to the Law No.…”