Assessment of the environmental performance of buildings: A critical evaluation of the influence of technical building equipment on residential buildings

Purpose

Sustainability assessments of buildings using the life cycle approach have become more and more common. This includes the assessment of the environmental performance of buildings. However, the influence of the construction products used for the fabric, the finishing, and the technical building equipment of buildings has hardly been described in literature. For this reason, we evaluated the influence of the technical building equipment and its impact on the environment for different residential buildings.

Materials and methods

Five residential buildings were evaluated by applying the methodology of life cycle assessment (LCA) (ISO14040) expressed using quantitative assessment categories according to prEN15978.

Results and discussion

Results show that the optimization of energy performance has already reached a high level in Austria, so that the overall potential for possible improvements is quite low. Especially in low-energy and passive?Chouse-standard residential buildings, the limits for energy optimization in the use phase have mostly been achieved. In contrast to this, the integrated LCA (iLCA) findings attribute a high optimization potential to the construction products used for the technical building equipment as well as to the building fabric and finishing. Additionally, the passive house shows the lowest contribution of the technical building equipment on the overall LCA results.

Conclusions

The iLCA findings suggest that it is recommended to include the technical building equipment for future assessments of the environmental performance of buildings. It is also suggested to use a broad number of environmental indicators for building LCA.     

ILCD Handbook Public Consultation Workshop

Introduction

The European Commission is supporting the development of the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD). This consists primarily of the ILCD Handbook and the ILCD Data Network. This paper gives an insight into the scientific positions of business, governments, consultants, academics, and others that were expressed at this public consultation workshop.

Workshop focus

The workshop focused on four of the topics of the main guidance documents of the ILCD Handbook: (1) general guidance on life cycle assessment (LCA); (2) guidance for generic and average life cycle inventory (LCI) data sets; (3) requirements for environmental impact assessment methods, models and indicators for LCA; and (4) review schemes for LCA.

Workshop participation

This consultation workshop was attended by more than 120 participants during the 4 days of the workshop. Representatives came from 23 countries, from both within and outside the European Union.

Workshop structure

Approximately half of the participants were from business associations or individual companies. Another 20% were governmental representatives. Others came predominantly from consultancies and academia.

Results

This public consultation workshop provided valuable inputs into the overall ILCD Handbook developments as well as for further development. This paper focuses on some of the main scientific issues that were raised.     

Towards guidance values for the environmental performance of buildings: application to the statistical analysis of 40 low-energy single family houses’ LCA in France

Purpose

In this study, life cycle assessment (LCA) is applied to a sample of 40 low-energy individual houses for the French context in order to identify guidance values for different environmental priorities (energy and water consumption, greenhouse gases emissions, waste generation etc.).

Methods

Calculation rules for the LCA derived from EeBGuide guidance and HQE Performance specific rules for the French context. Data are based on Environmental Product Declaration (EPD for the impacts related to products and technical equipment while generic data are used for energy and water processes. The LCA is defined for the entire life cycle of a building from cradle-to-grave according to NF EN 15978 standard. It includes the products and equipment implemented in the building, the different uses of energy for heating, domestic hot water, lighting, ventilation and auxiliaries, and the different uses of water consumption.

Results and discussion

Results for the 40 houses showed that the average life cycle non-renewable primary energy consumption is about 37 kWh/(m²*year) while the life cycle greenhouse gases emissions are of 8.4 kg CO₂-eq/(m²*year). The embodied impacts represent between 40% and 72% for the following indicators: acidification, global warming, non-renewable primary energy, and radioactive waste. The net fresh water use is mostly determined by the direct use of the water in use, and the non-hazardous waste indicator is only linked to the materials and equipment. When integrating the variability of the different houses design, energy performance, climate requirements, it was found that those values can vary of an order of two between the 10 and 90% percentiles’ values. It was found that the results are also sensitive to the enlargement of the system boundaries (e.g. inclusion of the other uses of energy such as building appliances) and the modification of the reference study period.

Conclusions and recommendations

This study provided a first set of LCA guidance values describing a range of environmental impacts for new low-energy individual houses in France. Results were also reported for different design parameters, system boundaries and reference study period. The outcomes of this study can now serve as a basis to guide and support new LCA-based labelling systems developed by public authorities and labelling schemes (e.g. the HQE Association).

     

Critical review of guidelines against a systematic framework with regard to consistency on allocation procedures for recycling in LCA

Purpose

Multifunctionality in LCA can be solved by several allocation procedures. Various official guidelines give divergent recommendations in which allocation procedure to apply, and up to now, no consensus has been reached. We aim to identify the obstacles to a consistent allocation approach that can be applied to all product categories and is supported by a broad range of stakeholders.

Methods

Based on a systematic framework for consistent allocation, developed by Schrijvers et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2016), we identify five review criteria that indicate the degree of consistency in the proposed allocation procedure of official guidelines. Several relevant guidelines, i.e. ISO 14044, ISO/TR 14049, ISO/TS 14067, the ILCD Handbook, BP X30-323-0, PAS 2050, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, EN15804, PEF Guide and guidance documents for EPDs and PCRs, are reviewed according to these criteria.

Results and discussion

None of the investigated guidelines fully follows the systematic framework for allocation. Often, different approaches are recommended for co-products and recycled materials, although the boundary between these flows is not always clear. Many guidelines do not recognize the existence of different LCA goals; therefore, elements of attributional and consequential LCAs are often mixed. The market situation of the recycled material is not always taken into account, e.g. in the mandatory 50/50 method of the PEF Guide. The ILCD Handbook and the General Programme Instructions for the International EPD® System provide most consistent guidance. We argue that consistency does not require a one-formula-fits-all method, as this would favour some product categories and only responds to a certain LCA goal.

Conclusions and perspectives

A critical review of guidelines against a systematic framework for allocation of co-products and recycled materials shows that few guidelines propose a consistent allocation approach. The main obstacles for consistency are the different approaches for co-production and (different types of open-loop) recycling and disregarding of different LCA goals and recycled material markets. We recommend to include material specific guidance in Product Category Rules on the determination of market prices, quality determining factors and relevant material properties for different applications.

     

Service life of the dwelling stock in Spain

Purpose

Service life of buildings is an essential parameter to evaluate its operational impact in life cycle assessment (LCA). Although most studies assume building service life about 75 to 100 years since no reliable data are available, its accurate quantification is still an unresolved work. To avoid wrong generalizations, the determination of the service life of buildings according to the characteristics of every region is required.

Methods

Life table, a methodology traditionally used in demographic studies, has been used in this paper to estimate the service life of buildings. This methodology has been applied to the dwelling stock of Spain for each of its 19 regions. Data acquisition and sources have been pointed out. The building obsolescence has been considered in the moment that they are in a ruinous state.

Results and discussion

Life table of buildings showed that the average service life of a residential building constructed in 2001 in Spain was expected to be 80 years. Significant different results of service life among regions were found, from 54 years for a building in Ceuta to 95 years in La Rioja. It also showed that 50 % of total Spanish dwellings are younger than 30 years, and they are expected to reach the ruinous state in 2063 to 2081.

Conclusions

Life table applied to buildings allows determining their service life. Its quantification is based on the buildings census, given by official institutions. Building census has to consider the year of construction and the state of conservation of the building to be applied in buildings' life table. Building service life can be used in LCA, renovation and deconstruction of the building stock, and future construction and demolition debris management.     

Land use impact assessment in the construction sector: an analysis of LCIA models and case study application

Purpose

Land use is a potentially important impact category in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of buildings. Three research questions are addressed in this paper: Is land use a decisive factor in the environmental impact of buildings?; Is it important to include the primary land use of buildings in the assessment?; and How does the environmental performance of solid structure and timber frame dwellings differ when assessed by distinct available models for quantifying land use impacts?

Methods

This paper compares several operational land use impact assessment models, which are subsequently implemented in an LCA case study comparing a building constructed using timber frame versus a solid structure. Different models were used for addressing the different research questions.

Results and discussion

The results reveal that contrasting decisions may be supported by LCA study results, depending on whether or not and how land use is included in the assessment. The analysis also highlights the need to include the building land footprint in the assessment and to better distinguish building locations in current land use impact assessment models.

Conclusions

Selecting land use assessment models that are most appropriate to the goals of the study is recommended as different models assess different environmental issues related to land use. In general, the combination of two land use assessment methods for buildings is recommended, i.e. soil organic matter (SOM) of Milà i Canals and Eco-indicator 99.     

The assessment of the relevance of building components and life phases for the environmental profile of nearly zero-energy buildings: life cycle assessment of a multifamily building in Italy

Purpose

Since the construction sector is a considerable energy consumer and greenhouse gas (GHG) producer, the EU rules strive to build nearly zero-energy buildings, by reducing the operative energy and yearning for on-site energy production. This article underlines the necessity to go beyond the energy evaluations and move towards the environmental assessment in a life cycle perspective, by comparing the impacts due to building materials and energy production devices.

Methods

We compared the operational energy impacts and those of technologies and materials carrying out a life cycle assessment (LCA; ISO 14040, ISO 14044, EN 15643–2, EN 15978) on a nearly zero-energy building (ZEB), a residential complex with 61 apartments in four buildings, situated near Milan (Italy). We consider all life cycle phases, including production, transport, building site activities, use and maintenance; the materials inventory was filled out collecting data from invoices paid, building site reports, construction drawings and product data sheets. To make the assessment results comparable, we set a functional unit of 1 m² of net floor area in 1 year (1 m²y), upon a lifespan of 100 years. The environmental data were acquired from Ecoinvent 2.2.

Results and discussion

The results highlight the important role of the pre-use and maintenance phases in building life so that in a nearly ZEB, the environmental impacts linked to the use are no longer the major proportion: the pre-use phase accounts for 56 %, while the operative energy is only 31 % of the total. For this reason, if the environmental assessment of the case study was shrunk to the operational consumption, only one third of the impacts would be considered. The consumption of non-renewable resources after 100 years are 193,950 GJ (133.5 kWh/m²y); the GHG emissions are 15,300 t (37.8 kg of CO₂?eq/m²y). In the pre-use phase, structures have the major impacts (50 %) and the load of system components is unexpectedly high (12 %) due to the ambition of on-site energy production.

Conclusions

Paying attention to the operative energy consumption seems to address to only one third of the environmental impacts of buildings: the adoption of LCA as a tool to guide the design choices could help to identify the solution which ensures the lowest overall impact on the whole life, balancing the options of reducing the energy requirements, the on-site production from renewable sources and the limitation of the impacts due to building components (simpler and more durable).

     

Dynamic life cycle assessment: framework and application to an institutional building

Purpose

This paper uses a dynamic life cycle assessment (DLCA) approach and illustrates the potential importance of the method using a simplified case study of an institutional building. Previous life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have consistently found that energy consumption in the use phase of a building is dominant in most environmental impact categories. Due to the long life span of buildings and potential for changes in usage patterns over time, a shift toward DLCA has been suggested.

Methods

We define DLCA as an approach to LCA which explicitly incorporates dynamic process modeling in the context of temporal and spatial variations in the surrounding industrial and environmental systems. A simplified mathematical model is used to incorporate dynamic information from the case study building, temporally explicit sources of life cycle inventory data and temporally explicit life cycle impact assessment characterization factors, where available. The DLCA model was evaluated for the historical and projected future environmental impacts of an existing institutional building, with additional scenario development for sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of future impacts.

Results and discussion

Results showed that overall life cycle impacts varied greatly in some categories when compared to static LCA results, generated from the temporal perspective of either the building's initial construction or its recent renovation. From the initial construction perspective, impacts in categories related to criteria air pollutants were reduced by more than 50 % when compared to a static LCA, even though nonrenewable energy use increased by 15 %. Pollution controls were a major reason for these reductions. In the future scenario analysis, the baseline DLCA scenario showed a decrease in all impact categories compared with the static LCA. The outer bounds of the sensitivity analysis varied from slightly higher to strongly lower than the static results, indicating the general robustness of the decline across the scenarios.

Conclusions

These findings support the use of dynamic modeling in life cycle assessment to increase the relevance of results. In some cases, decision making related to building design and operations may be affected by considering the interaction of temporally explicit information in multiple steps of the LCA. The DLCA results suggest that in some cases, changes during a building's lifetime can influence the LCA results to a greater degree than the material and construction phases. Adapting LCA to a more dynamic approach may increase the usefulness of the method in assessing the performance of buildings and other complex systems in the built environment.     

Multidimensional Pareto optimization as an approach for site-specific building refurbishment solutions applicable for life cycle sustainability assessment

Purpose

This paper addresses the application and potential of LCSA in the built environment with a focus on refurbishments of residential buildings. It specifically addresses the phenomenon of interchange of building technologies efficiencies under different life time assessments from economy, ecology and social fields. An approach of optimization rather than hard target numbers is proposed as win–win–win situations are unlikely.

Methods

A multidimensional Pareto optimization methodology, using LCC, LCA combined with first stages of a social assessment in a feasibility study but potentially later full SLCA, is proposed, which site-specifically visualizes the interchange between different options in building design or modification, and evaluates optimal overall concepts. LCA and LCC are used to analyze a case study from an EU project named BEEM-UP in which solutions for large-scale uptake of refurbishment strategies are developed. Social frame conditions are taken into account by identifying the driving technologies and feeding the consequences of their implementation for the residents into the tenant involvement part of the project.

Results and discussion

The calculations prove that the general assumptions leading to the methodology hold true at least for this case study. A clear Pareto-optimal curve is visible when assessing LCC and LCA. The example buildings results show certain systems to be dominating clusters on the figures while others clearly can be identified as not relevant. Several of the driving technologies however fail to be applicable because of social frame conditions, e.g., clear requests by the tenants. Based on the conclusions, the potential for including SLCA as a third dimension in the methodology and possible visualization options are discussed.

Conclusions

The development in the field of social indicators in the building sector has to be strengthened in order to come up with a holistic picture and respectively with appropriate responses to current challenges. While some solutions identified in the LCC/LCA assessment also have good social characteristics, several others have not and solutions identified as lacking might have social advantages that are currently left out of consideration The upcoming Standards EN 15643-5 and ISO 15686-x are a promising step in this direction as is the work to create a conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA by the scientific community.     

Assessment of ecological sustainability of a building subjected to potential seismic events during its lifetime

Purpose

Sustainable development aims to enhance the quality of life by improving the social, economic and environmental conditions for present and future generations. A sustainable engineering decision-making strategy for design and assessment of construction works (i.e., civil engineering and buildings) should take into account considerations regarding the society, the economy and the environment. This study presents a novel approach for the life cycle assessment (LCA) of a case-study building subjected to seismic actions during its service life, accounting for structural reliability.

Methods

A methodology is presented that evaluates the time-dependent probability of exceeding a limit state considering the uncertainty in the representation of seismic action. By employing this methodology, the earthquake-induced damages are related to the environmental and social losses caused by the occurrence of the earthquake. A LCA of a case-study building accounting for the time-dependent seismic reliability is conducted using a damage-oriented LCA approach.

Results and discussion

The contributions of the different life cycle phases to the total environmental impact related to the building lifetime are in agreement with previous results in this field of study. However, the LCA results revealed significant risk-based contributions for the rehabilitation phase due to the induced damage resulting in seismic events. Particularly, the rehabilitation phase is expected to contribute to the total environmental impact with around the 25 % of the initial environmental impact load (related to the pre-use phase) as a consequence of seismic damage.

Conclusions and recommendations

The probability of occurrence of seismic events affects the LCA results for various life cycle phases of a building in terms of all the indicators adopted in the analysis. The time-dependent probability of collapse in a year can represent a benchmark indicator for human safety in the context of social sustainability for the building sector. The proposed approach can be implemented in a sustainable decision-making tool for design and assessment.     

Integrating triple bottom line input–output analysis into life cycle sustainability assessment framework: the case for US buildings

Purpose

With the increasing concerns related to integration of social and economic dimensions of the sustainability into life cycle assessment (LCA), traditional LCA approach has been transformed into a new concept, which is called as life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). This study aims to contribute the existing LCSA framework by integrating several social and economic indicators to demonstrate the usefulness of input–output modeling on quantifying sustainability impacts. Additionally, inclusion of all indirect supply chain-related impacts provides an economy-wide analysis and a macro-level LCSA. Current research also aims to identify and outline economic, social, and environmental impacts, termed as triple bottom line (TBL), of the US residential and commercial buildings encompassing building construction, operation, and disposal phases.

Methods

To achieve this goal, TBL economic input–output based hybrid LCA model is utilized for assessing building sustainability of the US residential and commercial buildings. Residential buildings include single and multi-family structures, while medical buildings, hospitals, special care buildings, office buildings, including financial buildings, multi-merchandise shopping, beverage and food establishments, warehouses, and other commercial structures are classified as commercial buildings according to the US Department of Commerce. In this analysis, 16 macro-level sustainability assessment indicators were chosen and divided into three main categories, namely environmental, social, and economic indicators.

Results and discussion

Analysis results revealed that construction phase, electricity use, and commuting played a crucial role in much of the sustainability impact categories. The electricity use was the most dominant component of the environmental impacts with more than 50 % of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption through all life cycle stages of the US buildings. In addition, construction phase has the largest share in income category with 60 % of the total income generated through residential building’s life cycle. Residential buildings have higher shares in all of the sustainability impact categories due to their relatively higher economic activity and different supply chain characteristics.

Conclusions

This paper is an important attempt toward integrating the TBL perspective into LCSA framework. Policymakers can benefit from such approach and quantify macro-level environmental, economic, and social impacts of their policy implications simultaneously. Another important outcome of this study is that focusing only environmental impacts may misguide decision-makers and compromise social and economic benefits while trying to reduce environmental impacts. Hence, instead of focusing on environmental impacts only, this study filled the gap about analyzing sustainability impacts of buildings from a holistic perspective.     

Attributional and consequential LCA in the ILCD handbook

Purpose

This discussion article aims to highlight two problematic aspects in the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook: its guidance to the choice between attributional and consequential modeling and to the choice between average and marginal data as input to the life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis.

Methods

We analyze the ILCD guidance by comparing different statements in the handbook with each other and with previous research in this area.

Results and discussion

We find that the ILCD handbook is internally inconsistent when it comes to recommendations on how to choose between attributional and consequential modeling. We also find that the handbook is inconsistent with much of previous research in this matter, and also in the recommendations on how to choose between average and marginal data in the LCI.

Conclusions

Because of the inconsistencies in the ILCD handbook, we recommend that the handbook be revised.

     

Critical review: a summary of the current state-of-practice

Purpose

Much collective wisdom and experience have been gained as an increasing number of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) reviews are conducted. However, specifics on how and when to conduct critical review of LCA studies are still lacking. Toward this need, a technical session entitled “LCA Critical Review” was held during the Life Cycle Management (LCM) conference in Gothenburg, Sweden, 26 August 2013. The goal of the session was to have experts address LCA critical review as well as engage attendees in discussing gaps in the current guidance and how the review process can be improved.

Methods

The LCM session consisted of six presentations followed by open discussion with all session attendees. This paper begins with a review of the current state-of-the-practice in LCA critical review (CR) followed by a summary of the LCM session. It concludes with suggestions for how the newly drafted technical specification, ISO TS 14071 Critical review processes and reviewer competencies, can be improved as it is being developed.

Results and discussion

ISO TS 14071 promises to provide additional guidance to move the practice forward. But at only eight pages in length, its potential effectiveness appears moderate. Additional detailed guidance is needed to move the critical review process toward increased uniformity and clarity of practice, for example, when critical review is necessary.

Conclusions

A session on LCA critical review is planned to be held during the Life Cycle Management 2015 conference which will occur in Bordeaux, France (http://lcm2015.org/). Discussion on these issues related to LCA review will be continued.     

Comparing the midpoint and endpoint approaches based on ReCiPe—a study of commercial buildings in Hong Kong

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been increasingly implemented in analyzing the environmental performance of buildings and construction projects. To assess the life cycle environmental performance, decision-makers may adopt the two life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) approaches, namely the midpoint and endpoint models. Any imprudent usage of the two approaches may affect the assessment results and thus lead to misleading findings. ReCiPe, a well-known work, includes a package of LCIA methods to provide assessments on both midpoint and endpoint levels. This study compares different potential LCIA results using the midpoint and endpoint approaches of ReCiPe based on the assessment of a commercial building in Hong Kong.

Methods

This paper examines 23 materials accounting for over 99 % of the environmental impacts of all the materials consumed in commercial buildings in Hong Kong. The midpoint and endpoint results are compared at the normalization level. A commercial building in Hong Kong is further studied to provide insights as a real case study. The ranking of impact categories and the contributions from various construction materials are examined for the commercial building. Influence due to the weighting factors is discussed.

Results and discussion

Normalization results of individual impact categories of the midpoint and endpoint approaches are consistent for the selected construction materials. The difference in the two approaches can be detected when several impact categories are considered. The ranking of materials is slightly different under the two approaches. The ranking of impact categories demonstrates completely different features. In the case study of a commercial building in Hong Kong, the contributions from subprocesses are different at the midpoint and endpoint. The weighting factors can determine not only the contributions of the damage categories to the total environment, but also the value of a single score.

Conclusions

In this research, the midpoint and endpoint approaches are compared using ReCiPe. Information is whittled down from the inventories to a single score. Midpoint results are comprehensive while endpoint results are concise. The endpoint approach which provides additional information of damage should be used as a supplementary to the midpoint model. When endpoint results are asked for, a LCIA method like ReCiPe that provides both the midpoint and endpoint analysis is recommended. This study can assist LCA designers to interpret the midpoint and endpoint results, in particular, for the assessment of commercial buildings in Hong Kong.     

Carbon sequestration in LCA,a proposal for a new approach based on the global carbon cycle; cases on wood and on bamboo

Purpose

There are many recent proposals in life cycle assessment (LCA) to calculate temporary storage of carbon in bio-based products. However, there is still no consensus on how to deal with the issue. The main questions are: how do these proposals relate to each other, to what extent are they in line with the classical LCA method (as defined in ISO 14044) and the global mass balances as proposed by the IPCC, and is there really a need to introduce a discounting system for delayed CO₂ emissions?

Methods

This paper starts with an analysis of the widely applied specification of PAS 2050 and the ILCD Handbook, both specifying the credit for carbon sequestration as ‘optional’ in LCA. From this analysis, it is concluded that these optional calculations give rather different results compared to the baseline LCA method. Since these optional calculations are not fully in line with the global carbon mass balances, a new calculation method is proposed. To validate the new method, two cases (one on wood and one bamboo products) are given. These cases show the practical application and the consequences of the new approach. Finally, the main issue is evaluated and discussed: is it a realistic approach to allocate less damage to the same emission, when it is released later in time?

Results and discussion

This paper proposes a new approach based on the global carbon cycle and land-use change, translated to the level of individual products in LCA. It is argued that only a global growth of forest area and a global growth of application of wood in the building industry contribute to extra carbon sequestration, which might be allocated as a credit to the total market of wood products in LCA. This approach is different from approaches where temporary storage of carbon in trees is directly allocated to a product itself.

Conclusions

In the proposed approach, there seems to be no need for a discounting system of delayed CO₂ emissions. The advantage of wood and wood-based products can be described in terms of land-use change on a global scale in combination with a credit for heat recovery at the end-of-life (if applicable).     

A critical evaluation of Brazilian life cycle assessment studies

Purpose

A critical evaluation of the life cycle assessment (LCA) studies was performed in the main scientific bibliographic databases (online and free access) of Brazil where the LCA methodology could be considered.

Methods

This has been an exploratory study with a qualitative evaluation of quantitative LCA studies with regard to International Organization of Standardization (ISO) 14040 standards. Firstly, the selected papers were those which used the LCA methodology in case studies (quantitative LCA studies). This survey was based on previously chosen keywords which were directly and/or indirectly related to LCA in Portuguese, English, and Spanish.

Results and discussion

One hundred and twenty papers related to LCA were found, among which 21 have been effectively used the LCA methodology applied to case studies. The study has indicated agriculture and livestock as some promising areas for the use of LCA methodology in Brazil. As for the scope of LCA, it has been found that nine papers have adopted the cradle-to-grave approach, whereas 12 papers have limited the study to some life cycle stage (cradle-to-gate, gate-to-gate, or gate-to-grave). This behavior can be justified by the difficulty in obtaining data from raw material, supply chain, inputs, or about the disposal, reuse, and recycling of products/systems. The criteria set out in the ISO 14040 standard was carried out in 17 out of the 21 selected papers.

Conclusions

The LCA of Brazilian studies could be improved. For instance, when considering the requirements and guidelines of ISO standards, at the goal phase, the papers have clearly mentioned their target audience. The scope phase requires more explanation about the allocation procedures, once the process/product is not isolated, and for most processes, it may generate more than one product. As regards the Life Cycle Inventory, these studies could improve their data sources, once few papers used primary sources. According to our understanding, the best phase performed by the papers was life cycle impact assessment. Hopefully, LCA will become a known research area and will be adopted by most of the Brazilian scientific community. It is further expected that LCA might have a regular publication in scientific journals (perhaps an own journal).     

Environmental performance of social housing in emerging economies: life cycle assessment of conventional and alternative construction methods in the Philippines

Purpose

The environmental impact of the social building stock is relevant, particularly in emerging economies. Life cycle thinking is not yet established, however. Locally available, alternative building concepts could potentially reduce the environmental impact of the construction segment. This paper examines the environmental performance of “as-built” low-cost housing for an example of the Philippines, and the potential to reduce its environmental impact through use of three alternative building technologies: cement–bamboo frames, soil–cement blocks, and coconut board-based housing.

Methods

Life cycle assessment models are implemented and evaluated with software SimaPro, using the single-impact indicators global warming potential (GWP) and cumulative energy demand (CED) and the multi-impact indicator Impact2002+. According to EN 15978, the life cycle phase product and construction process (A), use stage (B), end-of-life (C) and supplementary information beyond the building life cycle (D) have been assessed. Theoretically calculated inflows from standard construction procedures used in phase A have been verified with 3 years of empirical data from implemented construction projects. For phases B, C and D, attention was given to service life, use-phase, allocation of waste products, biogenic carbon and land-use assumptions. Scenarios reflect the actual situation in the emerging economy. Processes, such as heat recovery from thermal utilization, which are not existing nor near to implementation, were excluded.

Results and discussion

For an assessment of the phases A–B–C–D with GWP, a 35% reduction of environmental impact for soil–cement blocks, 74% for cement–bamboo frame, and 83% for coconut board-based houses is obtained relative to a concrete reference house. In absolute terms, this relates to a reduction of 4.4, 9.3, and 10.3 t CO₂ equivalents over a service life of 25 years. CED showed higher impacts for the biogenic construction methods coconut board and cement–bamboo frames of +8.0 and +4.7%, while the soil–cement technology was evaluated ?7.1% compared to GWP. Sixteen of 17 midpoint categories of Impact2002+ confirmed an overall reduction potential of the alternative building methods, with the midpoint category land occupation being the exception rating the conventional practice over the alternatives.

Conclusions

It is concluded that the alternative construction technologies have substantial potential to reduce the environmental burden caused by the social housing sector. The service life of the alternative technologies plays a vital role for it. LCA for emerging economies needs to incorporate realistic scenarios applicable at their current state or belonging to the most probable alternatives to ensure valuable results. Recommendations for further research are provided.

     

Scientometric sorting by importance for literatures on life cycle assessments and some related methodological discussions

Purpose

This paper aims to sort the literatures on life cycle assessments (LCA) by their respective importance through citation and co-citation analysis and to further discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these kinds of scientometric methods in the case of LCA research.

Methods

CiteSpace II was used to generate document co-citation networks based on 3,824 articles retrieved from the ISI Web of Science database on this topic.

Results

Table 1 provides the top 50 highest cited documents in the LCA field. Here, we use two indicators, i.e., citation frequency in citation analysis and betweenness centrality metric in co-citation analysis, to measure the importance of these LCA literatures.

Conclusions

Citation and co-citation analysis are useful for environmental scientists and engineers to get a better understanding of the inner structure of LCA research. However, like all other research methods, this kind of analysis has some limitations. On the one hand, Scientometric studies and related software are very dependent on ISI Web of Science database, but considering the ISI Web of Science only began to track the LCA field fairly recently, the Scopus database would probably give a fuller picture. On the other hand, since the essence of scientometrics analysis is outsiders commenting insiders, so with only citation and co-citation analysis, to our understanding of the past, present, and future of LCA field, is insufficient.     

Marlo’s windows: why it is a mistake to ignore hazard resistance in LCA

Purpose

Hazard-resistant materials for homes promise environmental benefits, such as avoided waste and materials for repairs, which can be overlooked by scoping in life-cycle assessment (LCA) approaches. Our motivation for pursuing this research was to see how incorporating these avoided losses in the LCA could impact choices between hazard-resistant and traditional materials.

Methods

Two choices common in home construction were analyzed using an LCA process that incorporates catastrophe modeling to consider avoided losses made possible with hazard-resistant materials. These findings were compared to those based on a similar LCA that did not consider these avoided losses. The choices considered were standard windows vs. windows with impact-resistant glass and standard windows with no opening protection vs. standard windows with impact-resistant storm panels.

Results and discussion

For the window comparisons, the standard products were environmentally preferable when avoided losses from storm events were not considered in the LCA. However, when avoided losses were considered, the hazard-resistant products were environmentally preferable. Considering avoided losses in LCAs, as illustrated by the window choices, can change which product appears to be the environmentally preferable option. Further, as home service life increases, the environmental net benefit of the hazard-resistant product increases.

Conclusions

Our results show the value of an LCA approach which allows more complete scopings of comparisons between hazard-resistant materials and their traditional counterparts. This approach will help translate the impacts of hazard-resistant products into the more familiar language used to talk about “green” products, enabling more informed decisions by product manufacturers, those who develop building certification systems and codes, researchers, and other building industry stakeholders.