Alternative Building Materials (ABM): Towards Adoption of Common Terminology and Definitions

Introduction

The construction industry is undergoing a significant transformation as sustainability and resource efficiency become central concerns. Traditional building materials like concrete, steel, and brick have substantial environmental footprints, driving the need for Alternative Building Materials (ABM). However, the lack of standardized terminology and definitions for ABMs creates confusion among stakeholders, hindering widespread adoption.

This document explores the current landscape of ABMs, identifies gaps in terminology, and proposes a framework for consistent definitions to facilitate better communication, regulation, and market acceptance.

The Need for Alternative Building Materials (ABM)

1. Environmental and Economic Drivers

• Resource Depletion: Traditional materials rely on finite resources (e.g., sand for concrete, timber from deforestation).

• Carbon Emissions: Cement production alone contributes ~8% of global CO₂ emissions.

• Waste Generation: Construction and demolition waste account for a significant portion of landfill volumes.

• Economic Pressures: Rising costs of conventional materials push builders toward cost-effective alternatives.

2. Regulatory and Market Shifts

• Governments and green building materials certifications (e.g., LEED, BREEAM) incentivize sustainable materials.

• Consumer demand for eco-friendly homes is increasing.

Despite these drivers, inconsistent terminology slows progress. Terms like “green,” “sustainable,” “low-carbon,” and “eco-friendly” are often used interchangeably without clear standards.

Challenges in Defining ABMs

1. Lack of Consensus on Terminology

• “Alternative” is relative: A material considered alternative in one region may be conventional elsewhere (e.g., bamboo in Asia vs. Europe).

• Overlapping Categories: Some building materials fit multiple classifications (e.g., recycled plastic bricks could be both “recycled” and “low-carbon”).

2. Varying Standards and Certifications

• Different regions and organizations use conflicting criteria for sustainability.

• Some certifications focus only on carbon footprint, while others assess toxicity, durability, or social impact.

3. Industry Resistance and Risk Aversion

• Builders, architects, and insurers often prefer tried-and-tested materials due to perceived risks in durability, compliance, and resale value.

• Without clear definitions, ABMs struggle to gain trust in mainstream construction.

Proposed Framework for Standardizing ABM Definitions

To address these challenges, the document suggests a taxonomy for classifying ABMs based on key attributes:

1. Material Origin & Composition

• Bio-based: Derived from organic sources (e.g., hempcrete, mycelium, bamboo).

• Recycled/Upcycled: Made from waste materials (e.g., recycled plastic, fly ash bricks).

• Geosynthetic: Earth-based materials with minimal processing (e.g., rammed earth, compressed earth blocks).

• Engineered Hybrids: Composite materials combining natural and synthetic elements (e.g., fiber-reinforced polymers).

2. Environmental Impact

• Low-Carbon: Materials with significantly lower embodied carbon than conventional options.

• Renewable: Sourced from rapidly replenishing resources.

• Non-Toxic: Free from harmful chemicals (e.g., VOCs, formaldehyde).

3. Performance & Application

• Structural vs. Non-Structural: Some ABMs (e.g., cross-laminated timber) can replace steel/concrete, while others (e.g., straw bales) are better for insulation.

• Durability & Lifespan: Assessing long-term performance in different climates.

4. Regulatory & Market Acceptance

• Code-Compliant: Whether the material meets existing building codes.

• Scalability: Potential for mass production and cost competitiveness.

Case Studies: Successful ABM Adoption

1. Hempcrete (Bio-based)

• Made from hemp fibers mixed with lime.

• Benefits: Carbon-negative, excellent insulation, mold-resistant.

• Challenges: Limited structural strength, regulatory hurdles in some countries.

2. Recycled Plastic Bricks

• Composed of post-consumer plastic waste.

• Benefits: Lightweight, durable, reduces landfill waste.

• Challenges: Long-term UV degradation concerns.

3. Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) (Engineered Hybrid)

• Layers of wood laminated for strength.

• Benefits: Renewable, faster construction, carbon sequestration.

• Challenges: Fire resistance perceptions, higher costs in some markets.

These examples highlight the importance of clear definitions—each material has distinct advantages and limitations that must be communicated accurately.

Barriers to Standardization and How to Overcome Them

1. Fragmented Industry Stakeholders

• Architects, engineers, policymakers, and manufacturers often work in silos.

• Solution: Collaborative platforms (e.g., industry consortia) to align definitions.

2. Evolving Technology

• New materials emerge faster than regulations can adapt.

• Solution: Dynamic certification systems that update with innovations.

3. Misleading “Greenwashing”

• Some products are marketed as sustainable without verified data.

• Solution: Third-party verification and transparent lifecycle assessments (LCAs).

Recommendations for Widespread ABM Adoption

1. Develop Universal Definitions:

   • Organizations like ISO, CEN, and ASTM should establish standardized ABM terminology.

2. Enhance Certification Systems:

   • Integrate environmental, social, and economic metrics into certifications.

3. Policy Incentives:

   • Governments should offer subsidies, tax breaks, or fast-track approvals for verified ABMs.

4. Education & Awareness:

   • Training programs for builders, insurers, and regulators to reduce risk aversion.

5. Pilot Projects & Case Studies:

   • Demonstrate successful ABM applications to build market confidence.

Conclusion

The shift toward Alternative Building Materials (ABM) is essential for a sustainable construction future. However, inconsistent terminology and definitions create confusion, slowing adoption. By establishing a clear, standardized framework, stakeholders can better evaluate, compare, and implement ABMs.

This document calls for collaboration among researchers, industry leaders, and policymakers to create unified definitions, ensuring that ABMs are accurately represented, trusted, and widely adopted. Only then can the construction industry fully transition toward more sustainable, resilient, and innovative building practices.

Also Read: Financialisation of housing in South Korea: State-sanctioned popular speculation on housing