Risk factors for moisture damage presence and severity in Finnish homes

Taylor, J; Salmela, A; Täubel, M; Heimlander, A; Karvonen, A M; Pakkala, T; Lahdensivu, J and Pekkanen, J (2023) Risk factors for moisture damage presence and severity in Finnish homes. Buildings & Cities, 4(1), pp. 708-726. ISSN 2632-6655

Abstract

Moisture-damaged buildings are a prominent issue in Finland, but with limited information on damage prevalence, degree of severity and risk factors. This paper analyses 14,996 Finnish detached and semidetached houses that have undergone a standardised moisture assessment of interior spaces and at-risk structures inside the building envelope. Confirmed damage (a binary indicator of damage presence) and a damage index (an ordinal indicator of severity) were calculated for each home and their association with different building and area characteristics estimated. Frequently damaged structures include pre-1950s log walls, walls contacting soil, wooden ground floors and false plinths. Around 15% of surveyed houses had risk structure damage, 19% had at least one confirmed damage anywhere in the house and 49% had either confirmed, likely or possible damage. The greatest risk factor for confirmed damage was house age (odds ratio = 1.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.45–1.51) for each decade since construction), with nearly half of all houses built pre-1939 damaged. Other risk factors explained a third of the effect of building age, and included log external walls, fibreboard roofs, absence of mechanical ventilation, detached properties and wind-driven rain precipitation. Results can support targeted remediation efforts, protect health and estimate exposure–response relationships for moisture damage. PRACTICE RELEVANCE Moisture damage in homes causes various health concerns for occupants, and in colder climates such as Finland such damage often occurs within the building structure. This study finds confirmed moisture damage in 19% of surveyed Finnish homes. Most damage was within the building structure, supporting the need for surveys investigating inside known-risk structures. Older homes had much higher damage risk, reflecting different construction methods and ageing, but also suggesting modern building standards are helping to reduce damage. Increased risk in higher wind-driven precipitation regions indicates a need for regulations and research that improve the resilience of all housing to the projected increases in driving rain from climate change. Understanding the building characteristics and structures that increase moisture risk can support targeted remediation and maintenance in vulnerable buildings, conserve older buildings and avoid demolition, and help protect occupant health.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: adaptation; building assessment; building stock; damp; Finland; housing; microbial growth; moisture; moisture damage; mould; vulnerability
Index terms: roof, exposure, mould, estimate, climate change, precipitation, housing, wind-driven rain, building envelope, confidence interval, vulnerability, regulation, risk factor, presence, Finland, mechanical ventilation, building stock, driving rain, building age, construction method, adaptation, survey, moisture risk, building assessment
Subjects: public and environmental health, architectural elements, design practice, Geography, asset management, building construction, statistical analysis, environmental engineering, political science, environmental hazards, user focus, construction type, data collection methods, climate science, financial and cost management, environmental science
Topics: Design Practice, Site Management, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Sustainability, Governance, Construction Technology
Descriptive scope: 4 PCEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here