Focus on ecology – innovative approaches for the construction industry

We would like to talk to you about “sustainable practice” in the construction industry. Do you have a general categorisation of your position for us to start with?

“Apart from the fact that I consider the term sustainability to be inflationary, I see a discrepancy here between aspiration and reality. Of course, we have a responsibility towards the planet and future generations. However, the construction industry is also the number one driver in terms of resource and energy consumption. Our main task is therefore to use resources and energy responsibly and, above all, sensibly. I think we need to move from recyclable building products and construction methods to reusable ones – without ideologising: Let’s take the wood trend. We have to realise that we can harvest wood only to a limited extent. That’s why a meaningful framework is so important to me.

However, in specific construction projects, it is still a matter of financial viability.

“Yes – because the cost pressure is so high. The economy is the only incentive we have. That’s why I find this classic three-pillar model of sustainability questionable. We simply cannot prioritise the economic components just as much as the ecological and social ones. The high energy costs may also mean that energy use will have to be adjusted automatically. But the market alone will not regulate this. We need to focus more on ecology.

What could that look like?

“By placing greater emphasis on ecological principles in planning and building in such a way that maintenance costs are minimised. Let’s take the example of a bridge. It is said to have a service life of 100 years. But we know that we will have to rework the concrete surface or renew the corrosion protection at some point. We could do something about latter – for example by hydrophobising the surface upstream or by adapting protective systems from the offshore area. I firmly believe that such initial investments pay off if we don’t have to spend so much on maintenance later on. For example, the typical two-span bridge with a central pier is a disaster. We have long closure periods during construction, and we have to replace carriageway crossings, caps, and railings. With the integral and modular construction methods he conceived, Victor Schmitt has earned a great deal of merit – also from an economic point of view. They initially cost a little more. But the considerably shorter construction time and thus less traffic disruption and congestion during construction and maintenance make up for this many times over the service life.

We are already right in the middle of the “holistic analysis and evaluation of infrastructure projects” – a research topic that is particularly interesting. Why?

“That’s right. Because I hate being stuck in tailbacks caused by roadworks. Whether on motorways, main roads, or in inner-city areas: Tailbacks cause considerable economic damage. Studies show that every hour a car spends in a tailback costs €20 – and that is the lower end of the scale because it is an average value for private and business use. Nobody tells me that we have to make up all the hours spend in tailbacks. The stress caused by tailbacks – especially when we miss important appointments – reduces our performance. Energy consumption and vehicle wear in stop-and-go driving increase. There are more accidents because of carelessness. All of these are economic effects. That’s why my approach was to monetise congestion. Our analyses based on an example bridge over the A8 have shown that the costs arising from spending time in tailbacks because of the construction and maintenance of the bridge are considerably higher than the actual construction costs. With this in mind, we have developed software tools that make it possible to compare different construction methods and their effects.

Are you looking for an overarching view of the total costs?

“Exactly. This is because they are made up of the construction costs and the economic effects during maintenance and repair plus dismantling. That is, over the entire life cycle of a bridge.

What is your conclusion?

“That we have to move away from the supposedly cheapest solution to the overall optimal solution. A new way of thinking is required. The problem therefore also includes the framework conditions that have not yet been set accordingly. This is a political task. This is why the pressure on politicians must increase.