Considerations in Selecting Siding Materials
Siding selection is one of the most visible and distinctive features of a house. While it should be aesthetically pleasing, it must also be durable and protect the interior of a home from the relentless attack of the weather. When considering a sustainable choice for siding, one must balance the basic requirements for weather proofing, with the characteristics of each material that make it a more or less sustainable choice.
Traditionally, solid wood siding has been the most popular choice. However, due to over-harvesting and a decline in the quality of materials, wood is now an expensive and maintenance-prone option. In its place, vinyl siding has become the material of choice for the majority of homes in the US. Aesthetic considerations aside, vinyl siding has serious drawbacks as a sustainable material. It is a petrochemical-based product (primarily PVC), which is a non-renewable resource that is increasingly becoming short in supply and politically more expensive. A significant amount of organic pollutants are created during the manufacturing process and it is not easily recycled.
Recently, some new alternatives have become more available to fill the void between solid wood and vinyl. Most notably, engineered wood and fiber cement products are increasingly becoming more popular and affordable. Engineered wood products make the most of a renewable resource in a cost effective and some times in a sustainably sensitive manner. However, not all engineered products are created equally and each most be evaluated on its own merits. Questions about certified wood, virgin versus recycled wood fibers, and off gassing of the binder materials must be weighed before an engineered wood product can be considered more or less sustainable than another. Fiber cement siding is another alternative that provides an extremely durable; long lasting product that can contain recycled wood, and in some cases, be sourced locally. It does require a significant amount of energy to manufacture and releases carbon dioxide in to the environment. However, when balanced against the 50-year life cycle of the product, fiber cement siding becomes a more attractive long-term sustainable solution.
Traditional siding products like stone, brick and metal siding have for many years provided very durable, long lasting exteriors. These products can be sourced locally, and in some cases be manufactured in a sustainable way. However, they generally still use significant amounts of energy in production and contributed significantly to air and water pollution. It is beyond the scope of this discussion, but the life-cycle cost of these products must be considered and in some cases can justify their use.
The following is a table listing the pros and cons of some possible siding choices for a conventionally framed house. In general, those items near the top of the list have attributes that make them more attractive from a sustainable perspective. However, within each category, there are specific products that, due to their unique characteristics, might make them a more or less green choice than the others on the list. Therefore, it is important to research each product brand and specification you are considering, with attention to its durability, material content, place of origin and means of manufacture. Only after such research, can you decide what is a sustainably appropriate choice for your house.
Material |
Pros |
Cons |
Sustainability Considerations |
Wood siding |
- Renewable resource
- Locally available
- Low embodied energy
|
- Requires frequent maintenance or replacement
- Relative High Cost
|
- Specify FSC certified materials
- Use reclaimed or salvage materials if possible
- Use local source if possible
|
Hardboard/Engineered Siding |
- High recycled content
- Renewable resource
- Relative low cost
|
- Durability can be an issue with some products
- Potential off-gassing
- Possible VOC pollution during manufacture
|
- FSC certified products available
- Investigate component materials for toxicity and recycled content
|
Cement Stucco/ Metal Lath |
- Very Durable
- Relative low cost
|
- CO2 produced in manufacture
- High embodied energy
|
- Confirm recycled content of metal lath
- Fly ash can be added to reduce Portland cement content and CO2 production
|
Fiber cement siding |
- Extremely durable
- Low Maintenance
- Weather resistance
- Relative low cost
|
- Low recycled content
- Non-certified imported wood content
- High embodied energy
- CO2 produced in manufacture
|
- Use locally produced products
|
Plywood siding |
- Renewable resource
- Relative low cost
- Dimensionally stable
|
- Durability can be an issue
- Often contains phenol-formaldehyde binder
- Uses more mature trees |
- No FSC certified products available
- Look for formaldehyde-free products
|
Metal siding |
- Very Durable
- High recycled content possible
|
- High embodied energy
- Water and air pollution created in manufacture
- CO2 produced in manufacture
|
- Confirm recycled content
|
Synthetic Stucco |
- Contributes to insulation R-value
- Durable
|
- Limited non-renewable resource (petrochemical based)
- Some foams create ozone depleting compounds in manufacture
|
- Look for non- CFC producing products
|
Brick |
- Low maintenance
- Extremely durable
- Potentially recyclable
- Locally available
|
- High embodied energy
- High Cost
|
- Use locally produced products
|
Concrete Block
|
- Low maintenance
- Extremely durable
- Locally available
|
- High embodied energy
- CO2 produced in manufacture
|
- Use locally produced products
- Fly ash can be added to reduce Portland cement content and CO2 production
|
Stone |
- Low maintenance
- Extremely durable
- Locally available
|
- High cost
- Water pollution in mining
- High Embodied energy
|
- Use locally produced products
|
Vinyl Siding
|
- Low cost
- Low maintenance
- Extremely durable
|
- Non-renewable resource (petrochemical based)
- High VOC pollution during manufacture
- Generally not recyclable
|
- None
|
|