Sustainable Building Materials Guided by Ecological Wisdom to Combat Environmental Issues

  • Mengmeng Li
  • Varenyam AchalEmail author
Part of the EcoWISE book series (EcoWISE)


Developing an ecology of construction is very important step to achieve sustainability in infrastructures that requires adopting ecological principles while choosing building materials. Nature provides some insights into sustainability in the built environment for sustainable construction. However, it is very important to know the concept of ecological wisdom that prevails in nature to get concept of sustainability in the built environment. Ecosystems are the source of important lessons and models for transitioning built environment onto sustainable path that opens option for sustainable building material to construct new infrastructures to fulfill the demand of growing population. Increasing needs for environmental protection has attracted the scientific community to develop building materials with less adverse impact on the environment. The use of plant-based materials or supplementary cementitious materials in concrete can reduce the environmental impacts of concrete and thus provide an option as sustainable building material. Microbial carbonate precipitation is another promising way of emulating nature’s sustainable ways that act as building material. The various building materials discussed in this article promote green buildings leading to energy and carbon emission reduction and demonstrate the scope for carbon mitigation options in the construction sector.


Sustainability Building materials Ecological wisdom Cement Earth construction 



This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant number 41550110499 and Shanghai Key Lab for Urban Ecological Processes and Eco-Restoration (SHUES2016B02).


  1. Achal V, Li M, Zhang Q (2013) BioCement, A recent research in construction engineering: status of China against rest of world. Adv Cem Res 26:281–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Achal V, Mukherjee A, Kumari D, Zhang Q (2015) Biomineralization for sustainable construction—a review of processes and applications. Earth Sci Rev 148:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Achal V, Mukherjee A, Zhang Q (2016) Unearthing ecological wisdom from natural habitats and its ramifications on development of biocement and sustainable cities. Landscape Urban Plan 155:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adesanya DA, Raheem AA (2010) A study of the permeability and acid attack of corn cob ash blended cements. Constr Build Mater 24(3):403–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Akbari H, Santamouris M, Reddi S, Jain AK, Yun HB, Reddi LN (2012) Biomimetics of stabilized earth construction: challenges and opportunities. Energy Build 55:452–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amziane S, Arnaud L (2007) Bio-aggregate-based building materials: applications to hemp concretes. ISTE Ltd., Wiley, London, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  7. Amziane S, Sonebi M (2016) Overview on bio-based building material made with plant aggregate. RILEM Tech Lett 1:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bapat JD (2012) Mineral admixtures in cement and concrete. Taylor & Francis, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Binici H, Yucegok F, Aksogan O, Kaplan H (2008) Effect of corncob, wheat straw, and plane leaf ashes as mineral admixtures on concrete durability. J Mater Civ Eng 20(7):478–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blankendaal T, Schuur P, Voordijk H (2014) Reducing the environmental impact of concrete and asphalt: a scenario approach. J Clean Prod 66:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blue Planet 2016 Accessed 18 Oct 2016
  12. CEMBUREAU (2015) Key facts and figures about cement.
  13. Chindaprasirt P, Kanchanda P, Sathonsaowaphak A, Cao HT (2007) Sulfate resistance of blended cements containing fly ash and rice husk ash. Constr Build Mater 21(6):1356–1361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chindaprasirt P, Rukzon S, Sirivivatnanon V (2008) Resistance to chloride penetration of blended Portland cement mortar containing palm oil fuel ash, rice husk ash and fly ash. Constr Build Mater 22(5):932–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Darling EK, Cros CJ, Wargocki P, Kolarik J, Morrison GC, Corsi RL (2012) Impacts of a clay plaster on indoor air quality assessed using chemical and sensory measurements. Build Environ 57:370–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ehrlich H (2010) Hierarchical biological materials. Biological materials of marine origin. Biologically-inspired systems 1. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ernest BM, Lluís G, Christian E (2016) Textile-reinforced rammed earth: experimental characterization of flexural strength and thoughness. Constr Build Mater 106:470–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fetra VR, Ismail AR, Ahmad MAZ (2011) Preliminary study of compressed stabilized earth brick (CSEB). Aust J Basic Appl Sci 5(9):6–12Google Scholar
  19. Flower D, Sanjayan J (2007) Green house gas emissions due to concrete manufacture. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:282–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. García-Gusano D, Herrera I, Garraín D, Lechón Y, Cabal H (2015) Life cycle assessment of the Spanish cement industry: implementation of environmental-friendly solutions. Clean Technol Envir 17:59–73Google Scholar
  21. Hamard E, Morel J-C, Salgado F, Marcom A, Meunier N (2013) A procedure to assess the suitability of plaster to protect vernacular earthen architecture. J Cult Heritage 14:109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hosseini MM, Shao Y, Whalen JK (2011) Biocement production from silicon-rich plant residues: perspectives and future potential in Canada. Biosys Eng 110:351–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Houben H, Guillard H (1994) Earth construction: a comprehensive guide. Practical Action, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Imbabi MS, Carrigan C, McKenna S (2012) Trends and developments in green cement and concrete technology. Int J Sustain Built Environ 1:194–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jain N, Bhargava A, Tarafdar JC, Singh SK, Panwar J (2013) A biomimetic approach towards synthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97:859–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaturapitakkul C, Kiattikomol K, Tangchirapat W, Saeting T (2007) Evaluation of the sulfate resistance of concrete containing palm oil fuel ash. Constr Build Mater 21(7):1399–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. John G, Clements-Croome D, Jeronimidis G (2005) Sustainable building solutions: are view of lessons from the natural world. Build Environ 40:319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kariyawasam KKGKD, Jayasinghe C (2016) Cement stabilized rammed earth as a sustainable construction material. Constr Build Mater 105:519–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keefe L (2005) Earth building: methods and materials, repair and conservation. Taylor & Francis Group, Abingdon (UK)Google Scholar
  30. Kibert CJ, Sendzimir J, Guy GB (2002) Defining an ecology of construction. In: Kibert CJ, Sendzimir J, Guy GB (eds) Construction ecology: nature as the basis for green buildings. Spon Press, London, pp 7–28Google Scholar
  31. Kleypas JA, Buddemeier RW, Archer D, Gattuso JP, Langdon C, Opdyke BN (1999) Geochemical consequences of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on coral reefs. Science 284:118–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lechtenbohmer S, Schuring A (2011) The potential for large-scale savings from insulating residential buildings in the EU. Energ Effi 4:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liang R, Hota G, Lei Y, Li Y (2013) Nondestructive evaluation of historic Hakka Rammed earth structures. Sustainability 5(5):298–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu K, Wang YA, Wang M (2014) Experimental and numerical study of enhancing the seismic behavior of rammed earth buildings. Adv Mater Res 919–921:925–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luccarelli M (1995) Lewis Mumford and the ecological region: the politics of planning. The Guildford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. McHarg I (1969) Design with nature. Natural History Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Mehta PK (1985) Influence of fly ash characteristics on the strength of portland-fly ash mixtures. Cement Concr Res 15:669–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Minke G (2012) Building with earth: design and technology of a sustainable architecture. Birkhäuser, BaselGoogle Scholar
  39. Montana G, Randazzo L, Sabbadini S (2014) Geomaterials in green building practices: comparative characterization of commercially available clay-based plasters. Environ Earth Sci 71:931–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Naik T (2008) Sustainability of concrete construction. Pract Periodical Struct Des Constr 13(2):98–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Neutra R (1971) Building with nature. Universal Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Nimityongskul P, Panichnava S, Hengsadeekul T (2003) Use of vetiver grass ash as cement replacement materials. In: ICV-3 held in Guangzhou, China, pp 6–9Google Scholar
  43. Norchem (2011) Silica fumes applications in sustainability.
  44. Pacheco-Torgal F (2014) Eco-efficient construction and building materials research under the EU framework programme horizon 2020. Constr Build Mater 51:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pacheco-Torgal F, Jalali S (2012) Earth construction: lessons from the past for future eco-efficient construction. Constr Build Mater 29:512–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reddy BVV, Leuzinger G, Sreeram VS (2014) Low embodied energy cement stabilised rammed earth building—a case study. Energy Build 68:541–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rong H, Qian CX (2012) Development of microbe cementitious material in China. J Shanghai Jiaotong Univ 17:350–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saraswathy V, Song HW (2007) Corrosion performance of rice husk ash blended concrete. Constr Build Mater 21(8):1779–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shao Y, Soda O, Xu J (2016) Capital Building for urban resilience: the case of reconstruction planning of Kesennuma City, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan. Procedia Environ Sci 36:122–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Singh NB, Singh VD, Rai S (2000) Hydration of bagasse ash-blended Portland cement. Cem Concr Res 30(9):1485–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Staniec M, Nowak H (2011) Analysis of the earth-sheltered buildings’ heating and cooling energy demand depending on type of soil. Arch Civil Mech Eng 11(1):221–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Steiner F (2016) The application of ecological knowledge requires a pursuit of wisdom. Landscape Urban Plan 155:108–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vargas J, Halog A (2015) Effective carbon emission reductions from using upgraded fly ash in the cement industry. J Clean Prod 103:948–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Varum H, Silveira D, Lobo B, Figueiredo A, Oliveira C, Costa A (2014) Structural behaviour and retrofitting of adobe masonry buildings. In: Costa A et al (eds) Structural rehabilitation of old buildings, building pathology and rehabilitation, pp 37–75Google Scholar
  56. Wells M (1991) Gentle architecture. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Xiang W-N (2014) Doing real and permanent good in landscape and urban planning: ecological wisdom for urban sustainability. Landscape Urban Plan 121:65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Xu J, Nangong M, Longfellow HW (2012) A poetical-dwelling poet of ecological wisdom from the perspective of eco-criticism. Engl Lang Teach 5:85–100Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of High Performance Ceramics and Superfine MicrostructureShanghai Institute of Ceramics, Chinese Academy of SciencesShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Environmental Engineering DivisionGuangdong Technion Israel Institute of TechnologyShantouChina

Personalised recommendations