Widening understanding of low embodied impact buildings: Results and recommendations from 80 multi-national quantitative and qualitative case studies

This paper publishes the results from a major five year International Energy Agency research project which investigated the reduction of embodied energy and greenhouse gas emissions over the whole life (‘cradle to grave’) of buildings. Annex 57 collated and analysed over 80 detailed quantitative and qualitative building case studies from the participating nations. For many years the multiple variations in methodological approach of case studies to assess the whole life embodied impacts of buildings have presented a major challenge for politicians and other decision makers. Any real change in design and construction practice has also proved elusive. This paper describes a modified research synthesis and meta analysis as a novel and valid method for drawing meaningful conclusions from large sets of significantly diverse studies. The quantitative analyses consider embodied impacts of the product stage, replacement, and end of life stages, of new and refurbished buildings, and of different building assemblies and construction materials. The product stage is shown to dominate in most cases, with the median value around two thirds of the whole life embodied impacts, with replacements the next highest with a median figure of around 25%; however replacements in five studies were over 50% of the whole life impacts. It should be noted that several life cycle stages are still missing from these studies. The case studies included eleven refurbishment projects, in which energy efficient measures and low carbon technologies were retrofitted to existing buildings; for these projects the median product stage impact was found to be just under half that for the new build projects. While further research is required to compare the operational energy use in the new and refurbished buildings, this suggests that such energy refurbishments have a significantly lower impact than new buildings. Several other studies considered the impacts from technical equipment and internal fixtures and fittings, both frequently excluded, and demonstrated that they can be responsible for up to 45% of the whole life embodied greenhouse gases and up to 48% of the whole life embodied energy. Finally, the paper combines the analysis of the quantitative case studies with that of qualitative studies, to explore the impact of contextual factors at both policy and project level in significantly reducing the embodied environmental impacts of buildings. The case studies have shown that planning authorities, major clients, developers, and individual designers, can all play an important role in reducing embodied impacts through encouraging innovation. The paper concludes with recommendations for policy makers, designers and LCA modelers which will support and effect real reductions in the whole life embodied impacts of buildings.

[1]  Alexander Passer,et al.  Design strategies for low embodied energy and greenhouse gases in buildings : analyses of the IEA Annex 57 case studies , 2014 .

[2]  Francesco Pomponi,et al.  Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the built environment - What does the evidence say? , 2016, Journal of environmental management.

[3]  C. D. Wolf,et al.  Furthering embodied carbon assessment in practice: Results of an industry-academia collaborative research project , 2018 .

[4]  Sarel Lavy,et al.  Need for an embodied energy measurement protocol for buildings: A review paper , 2012 .

[5]  S. T. Ng,et al.  Critical consideration of buildings' environmental impact assessment towards adoption of circular economy: An analytical review , 2018, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[6]  Manfred Lenzen,et al.  Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) will likely yield more accurate results than process-based LCA , 2018 .

[7]  Richard Fenner,et al.  Assessing embodied energy of building structural elements , 2010 .

[8]  Teresa Gallego,et al.  Comparison of environmental impacts of building structures with in situ cast floors and with precast concrete floors , 2009 .

[9]  E. Wenger Communities of practice and social learning systems”. Organization :. , 2000 .

[10]  Katie Symons,et al.  An Application of the CEN/TC350 standards to an Energy and Carbon LCA of timber used in construction, and the effect of end-of-life scenarios , 2013 .

[11]  E. Holleris Petersen,et al.  Life-cycle assessment of four multi-family buildings , 2001 .

[12]  Colin Sharp Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.) , 2003 .

[13]  Sabine Hielscher,et al.  A grassroots sustainable energy niche?:Reflections on community energy in the UK , 2014 .

[14]  Anne Power,et al.  Does demolition or refurbishment of old and inefficient homes help to increase our environmental, social and economic viability? , 2008 .

[15]  M. Borenstein,et al.  Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments , 2006 .

[16]  Sébastien Lasvaux,et al.  Influence of construction material uncertainties on residential building LCA reliability , 2017 .

[17]  Linda S. Heath,et al.  The greenhouse gas and energy impacts of using wood instead of alternatives in residential construction in the United States , 2008 .

[18]  John S. Monahan,et al.  An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern methods of construction in housing: A case study us , 2011 .

[19]  Robert H. Crawford,et al.  Hybrid life cycle inventory methods – A review , 2018 .

[20]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Bias in peer review , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[21]  J. Burnett,et al.  Analysis of embodied energy use in the residential building of Hong Kong , 2001 .

[22]  Manish K. Dixit,et al.  Life cycle embodied energy analysis of residential buildings: A review of literature to investigate embodied energy parameters , 2017 .

[23]  Thomas Lützkendorf,et al.  Energy Efficiency of Buildings: The Aspect of Embodied Energy , 2016 .

[24]  Melissa M. Bilec,et al.  Impact of lifetime on US residential building LCA results , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[25]  Li Yu,et al.  The wood from the trees: The use of timber in construction , 2017 .

[26]  Tiffany Vass Material efficiency in clean energy transitions , 2019 .

[27]  F. N. Rasmussen,et al.  Embodied Carbon Measurement, Mitigation and Management Within Europe, Drawing on a Cross-Case Analysis of 60 Building Case Studies , 2018 .

[28]  L. Hedges,et al.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis , 2009 .

[29]  Jason Hackworth,et al.  Demolition as urban policy in the American Rust Belt , 2016 .

[30]  T. Malmqvist,et al.  Basic building life cycle calculations to decrease contribution to climate change Case study on an , 2011 .

[31]  H. Suri Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis , 2011 .

[32]  Thomas Lützkendorf,et al.  Assessing the environmental performance of buildings: trends, lessons and tensions , 2018 .

[33]  Alice Moncaster,et al.  Analysing methodological choices in calculations of embodied energy and GHG emissions from buildings , 2018 .

[34]  M. Erlandsson,et al.  Requirements set by Swedish municipalities to promote construction with low climate change impact , 2019, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[35]  E. Wenger Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems , 2000 .

[36]  David Pearlmutter,et al.  A life-cycle energy analysis of building materials in the Negev desert , 2008 .

[37]  Mario Fontana,et al.  Energy retrofit of a single-family house: Life cycle net energy saving and environmental benefits , 2013 .

[38]  Rob Marsh,et al.  Embodied Carbon Tools for Architects and Clients Early in the Design Process , 2018 .

[39]  Juha-Matti Junnonen,et al.  Input–output and process LCAs in the building sector: are the results compatible with each other? , 2017 .

[40]  David E. Shiers,et al.  The Green Guide to Specification: An Environmental Profiling System for Building Materials and Components , 2002 .

[41]  Ian Walker,et al.  Minimising energy in construction: Practitioners’ views on material efficiency , 2019, Resources, Conservation and Recycling.

[42]  Peter Wild,et al.  Inadequate documentation in published life cycle energy reports on buildings , 2010 .

[43]  Manish K. Dixit,et al.  Life cycle recurrent embodied energy calculation of buildings: A review , 2019, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[44]  Xiaocun Zhang,et al.  Analysis of embodied carbon in the building life cycle considering the temporal perspectives of emissions: A case study in China , 2017 .

[45]  Wahidul K. Biswas,et al.  Impact of Service Life on the Environmental Performance of Buildings , 2019, Buildings.

[46]  Robert H. Crawford,et al.  Embodied Carbon in Buildings: An Australian Perspective , 2018 .

[47]  Pere Fullana-i-Palmer,et al.  Introducing a new method for calculating the environmental credits of end-of-life material recovery in attributional LCA , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[48]  Thomas Lützkendorf,et al.  Cumulative energy demand in LCA: the energy harvested approach , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[49]  A. Horvath,et al.  Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector? , 2017 .

[50]  Ben Amor,et al.  Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: A critical review , 2017 .

[51]  Dejan Mumovic,et al.  The life cycle carbon footprint of refurbished and new buildings – A systematic review of case studies , 2018, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.

[52]  Jamie Meil,et al.  Prospects for carbon-neutral housing: the influence of greater wood use on the carbon footprint of a single-family residence , 2009 .

[53]  Harpa Birgisdottir,et al.  Life Cycle Environmental Impacts from Refurbishment Projects - A Case Study , 2016 .

[54]  Mirkka Rekola,et al.  The role of design management in the sustainable building process , 2012 .

[55]  Robert H. Crawford,et al.  Building service life and its effect on the life cycle embodied energy of buildings , 2015 .

[56]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  Understanding System Innovations: A Critical Literature Review and a Conceptual Synthesis , 2004 .

[57]  Nils Brown,et al.  Embodied greenhouse gas emissions from refurbishment of residential building stock to achieve a 50% operational energy reduction , 2014 .

[58]  P. G. Taylor,et al.  Construction sector views on low carbon building materials , 2016 .

[59]  English Version,et al.  Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of environmental performance of buildings - Calculation method , 2010 .

[60]  Alice Moncaster,et al.  A method and tool for ‘cradle to grave’ embodied carbon and energy impacts of UK buildings in compliance with the new TC350 standards , 2013 .

[61]  M. Cronshaw Energy Use , 2019, Energy in Perspective.

[62]  I. Andresen,et al.  Lessons learnt from embodied GHG emission calculations in zero emission buildings (ZEBs) from the Norwegian ZEB research centre , 2018 .

[63]  Martin Skitmore,et al.  Challenges facing carbon dioxide labelling of construction materials , 2013 .

[64]  Thomas Lützkendorf,et al.  IEA EBC Annex 57 ‘Evaluation of Embodied Energy and CO2eq for Building Construction’ , 2017 .

[65]  Anne Grete Hestnes,et al.  Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article , 2007 .

[66]  Bernardette Soust-Verdaguer,et al.  Simplification in life cycle assessment of single-family houses: A review of recent developments , 2016 .

[67]  Bruno Peuportier,et al.  Life cycle assessment applied to the comparative evaluation of single family houses in the French context , 2001 .

[68]  Helmuth Kreiner,et al.  A new systemic approach to improve the sustainability performance of office buildings in the early design stage , 2015 .

[69]  K. Symons A method and tool for ‘cradle to grave’ embodied energy and carbon impacts of UK buildings in compliance with the new TC350 standards , 2018 .

[70]  Adolf Acquaye,et al.  Operational vs. embodied emissions in buildings—A review of current trends , 2013 .

[71]  Rolf Frischknecht,et al.  LCI modelling approaches applied on recycling of materials in view of environmental sustainability, risk perception and eco-efficiency , 2010 .

[72]  Alice Moncaster,et al.  A comparative review of existing data and methodologies for calculating embodied energy and carbon of buildings , 2012 .

[73]  Francesco Pomponi,et al.  Measuring embodied carbon dioxide equivalent of buildings: A review and critique of current industry practice , 2017 .

[74]  Alice Moncaster,et al.  Design and construction strategies for reducing embodied impacts from buildings – Case study analysis , 2018 .

[75]  Raymond J. Cole,et al.  Life-cycle energy use in office buildings , 1996 .

[76]  R. Crawford,et al.  The Australian construction industry’s approach to embodied carbon assessment: a scoping study , 2015 .

[77]  Alexandra Lebert,et al.  Towards guidance values for the environmental performance of buildings: application to the statistical analysis of 40 low-energy single family houses’ LCA in France , 2017, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[78]  Annie Levasseur,et al.  Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[79]  Rolf Frischknecht,et al.  Life cycle assessment in the building sector: analytical tools, environmental information and labels , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[80]  Tarja Häkkinen,et al.  Reducing embodied carbon during the design process of buildings , 2015 .

[81]  B. Boardman Examining the carbon agenda via the 40% House scenario , 2007 .

[82]  Holger Wallbaum,et al.  Environmental product declarations entering the building sector: critical reflections based on 5 to 10 years experience in different European countries , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[83]  Andrea Campioli,et al.  Benchmarks for environmental impact of housing in Europe: Definition of archetypes and LCA of the residential building stock , 2018, Building and Environment.

[84]  Alice Moncaster,et al.  Why method matters: Temporal, spatial and physical variations in LCA and their impact on choice of structural system , 2018, Energy and Buildings.

[85]  M. Patton Qualitative research and evaluation methods , 1980 .

[86]  C. D. Wolf,et al.  A sustainable future for the European Cement and Concrete Industry: Technology assessment for full decarbonisation of the industry by 2050 , 2018 .

[87]  Antonín Lupíšek,et al.  Design Strategies for Low Embodied Carbon and Low Embodied Energy Buildings: Principles and Examples✠ , 2015 .