Sprint 2: Development

Developing the building material impact tool

The goals of Sprint 2

Collect data for each material based on impact categories outlined in Sprint 1
Redefine model houses from Sprint 1.
Create an open-data api to serve data to the tool
Design and build an interface for the tool based on insights gained in Sprint 1
Communicate outcomes of Sprint 0 & 1 on the LifeLab

Data Collection

In week 1 of sprint 2 the team defined the requirements for the dataset on bio-based building materials. The dataset was filled with existing data from NIBE and Holland Houtland and expanded to include new materials and new impact categories. In the absence of nationally recognized frameworks for specific materials, desk-research was used to ascertain which data source is most appropriate, also considering EU (EN-norm based) data. All data sources were recorded and entered into the database for reference. The Open Data bio-based, hybrid & conventional materials are stored and structured in a google sheet that will be available for public use.

Impact categories and indicators

The current assessment model is based on 5 impact categories divided into two groups, social and ecological. Each category has one or more impact indicators. The main task of sprint 2 was to ensure that each indicator is assigned a unit of measurement and a value based on a reliable source. These sources need to be defendable in the face of scrutiny as the credibility of the tool will be based on the rigour of the dataset.

The main challenge was to find datasets which represent each of the impact categories for each of the materials. As there are no existing datasets, we needed to find creative ways to fill this knowledge gap. This task becomes much more approachable when we take inspiration from the drawdown method of meta-analysis which takes into account the lack of data sometimes available. It is important to bear in mind that this database will evolve over many iterations and become more precise and detailed over time.

Notes on Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide can be evaluated in three ways for each building product. By using the LCA data provided in the NIBE database we have access to data related to embodied carbon, construction carbon and also sequestered carbon.

Notes on Biodiversity

The biodiversity indicator used follows the logic of ASN bank’s biodiversity footprint pilot project from 2019. This report uses the ReCiPe method to create a compound score to be derived from LCA impact categories. This lightweight approach allows us to create a basic preliminary assessment based on existing EPD and LCA assessments.

Notes on Wellbeing

The wellbeing indicator poses some issues regarding quantification. We have several strong references that provide empirical evidence that the more more sustainable a product is believed to be the higher the sense of wellbeing derived from it. An alternative approach would be to look at the direct health benefits related to bio-based building materials. Although there is evidence to support this, challenges in communicating those benefits as the indicators available provide an unsuitable measurement for comparison with our baseline house.

With this in mind it seems that it will be possible to create a wellbeing indicator derived from the ecological indicators. For example, the baseline house has a score of zero, the highest scoring house for ecological factors is given a wellbeing index of 10, with the second place house given a score relative to the percentage difference from the highest.

Empirical evidence indicates that practices linked to reducing the environmental impact of travelling, heating, cooling and food consumption are compatible with high levels of wellbeing.

Mònica Guillen-Royo

Open Data API

In week one of sprint #2 the team defined which information technologies should be used to create the biobased building materials database. This choice was made based on the expected size of the database, data-structure, expected database queries load vs cost per query, future proofing for python integration etc. The choice was between SQL vs noSQL approaches to structured and unstructured data. In the end we made the choice for the Firebase Realtime Database. This is a cloud-hosted NoSQL database that lets you store and sync data between users in realtime and remains available when the app goes offline.

Assessment model visualisation

We incorporate the Doughnut of Kate Raworth into our assesment framework, with the main impact categories CO2, nitrogen, biodiversity, well-being, and affordability. The indicators required for each material are organized in a sunburst format diagram showing nested impact categories. There are three category levels: Impact category > Benefit Pathway > Assessment Indicator. This is to create layers of simplicity within the tool.

Building on the Doughnut

Assessment tool UI

In parallel to the data collection phase the team developed a web based application interface which allows for the selection and comparison of different building materials. This is a javascript based web app with access to the material database API. The prototype shows reactive data and the users can ‘build’ personalised models and print and save assessment results.

Material wiki

In this Sprint we also created a material wiki with product descriptions and additional technical data of all the different building materials in the tool. The images, descriptions and current pros of cons of each material will help visualize the benefits of bio-based materials. The data will be available inside the tool.

Communication strategy

First, a wireframe and information hierarchy for the LifeLab was developed and subsequently materialized on WordPress. The LifeLab will host and showcase the development of multiple accounting tools and systems, as there are multiple scalable natural climate solutions that all require different approaches. The team is producing development diaries highlighting the findings of each sprint, which are published on lifelab.ongra.org and medium.com.

Further reading: Key Principles of Visual Hierarchy in UX Design

Stakeholder consultations

During the developmental process we’ve been in contact with numerous knowledge partners, amongst others NIBE, NEN, The Green Village, Bloc, Nice Developers, Sawa, TNO, Platform M3 Architecten, ORGA architect, Stichting Nationale Koolstofmarkt, Dutch Green Building Council, ASN bank, gemeente Capelle aan den Ijssel, BouwN, EkoFlin and Strotec.

Next up in Sprint 3

User Testing on function, content, navigation, interaction and lay-out, especially with workshops etc.
Look at a real world test case scenario
Link back to Oncra transactions – possibly creating Carbon Certificates
Data Validation by third parties
Write-up assessment methodology
Delivery of the LifeLab website