A comparative study of environmental performance between prefabricated and traditional residential buildings in China

Abstract Prefabrication technology has been heavily promoted by the Chinese government due to its potential to improve construction quality and productivity. However, there is an urgent need to assess the environmental performance of prefabrication technology to identify whether it is an effective method that is conducive to sustainable development. This study considered two typical residential projects using the two technologies to conduct a fair comparison between prefabrication technology and cast-in-situ technology. Various measuring methods, including content analysis, face-to-face interviews and on-site measurements, were used for data collection. Environmental impact (EI) categories selected for the study included resource depletion, energy consumption and construction waste discharge. Two life cycle assessment (LCA)-based models, the construction environmental performance assessment system (CEPAS) and the building health impact assessment system (BHIAS), were integrated to measure the EI of the two construction technologies based on three damage categories, namely, ecosystem damage, resource depletion and health damage. Finally, social willingness to pay (WTP) was applied to integrate the damage categories for comparisons. The results indicated that the sample prefabricated residential building (PRB) construction was more efficient in energy use, with a 20.49% reduction in total consumption compared to the sample traditional residential building (TRB) construction. The use of prefabrication demonstrated a certain degree of advantages in EI, including a 35.82% reduction in resource depletion, a 6.61% reduction in health damage and a 3.47% reduction in ecosystem damage. Prefabrication technology was more environmentally friendly because of its advantages in reducing damage to the environment compared with traditional cast-in-situ construction technology.

[1]  Rodney Howes,et al.  Industrialized Housing Development in Chongqing , China Research team : , 2006 .

[2]  C. Murray,et al.  Global burden of disease , 1997, The Lancet.

[3]  Michael P. Todaro,et al.  World Development Report 1990. , 1990 .

[4]  Yuosre F. Badir,et al.  Industrialized Building Systems Construction in Malaysia , 2002 .

[5]  Sarel Lavy,et al.  Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: A literature review , 2010 .

[6]  Yimin Zhu,et al.  An LCA-based environmental impact assessment model for construction processes , 2010 .

[7]  ZhengYong Liu,et al.  Prefabrication Construction in Residential Building of Vanke Real Estate Company China , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Management and Service Science.

[8]  Wei Pan,et al.  Major Barriers to Off-Site Construction: The Developer’s Perspective in China , 2015 .

[9]  K. Chau,et al.  Mathematical model of water quality rehabilitation with rainwater utilisation: a case study at Haigang , 2006 .

[10]  Wafaa Nadim,et al.  Offsite production: a model for building down barriers: A European construction industry perspective , 2011 .

[11]  Mohamad Ibrahim Mohamad,et al.  Exploring the Potential of Using Industrialized Building System for Floating Urbanization by SWOT Analysis , 2012 .

[12]  Pavel Praks,et al.  Information retrieval in hydrochemical data using the latent semantic indexing approach , 2007 .

[13]  David Pearce,et al.  VALUING RISKS TO LIFE AND HEALTH Towards Consistent Transfer Estimates in the European Union and Accession States , 2000 .

[14]  Nitin Muttil,et al.  Machine-learning paradigms for selecting ecologically significant input variables , 2007, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell..

[15]  Martin Skitmore,et al.  Industrialized housing in China: a coin with two sides , 2012 .

[16]  Chi Sun Poon,et al.  The evolution of prefabricated residential building systems in Hong Kong: A review of the public and the private sector , 2009 .

[17]  Vivian W. Y Tam,et al.  Towards adoption of prefabrication in construction , 2007 .

[18]  Vivian W. Y Tam,et al.  Green construction assessment for environmental management in the construction industry of Hong Kong , 2004 .

[19]  Yi Peng,et al.  Exploring the challenges to industrialized residential building in China , 2014 .

[20]  Bengt Steen,et al.  A Systematic Approach to Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Development (EPS) Version 2000-General System Characteristics , 1999 .

[21]  Xiaoling Zhang,et al.  Green property development practice in China: Costs and barriers , 2011 .

[22]  Philip Crowther.  Design for Disassembly to Recover Embodied Energy , 1999 .

[23]  Barbara C. Lippiatt,et al.  Selecting Cost-Effective Green Building Products: BEES Approach , 1999 .

[24]  K. Chau,et al.  Neural network and genetic programming for modelling coastal algal blooms , 2006 .

[25]  Sha Liu,et al.  Study on factors that inhibit the promotion of SI housing system in China , 2015 .

[26]  Yimin Zhu,et al.  An assessment framework for analyzing the embodied carbon impacts of residential buildings in China , 2014 .

[27]  Youngjib Ham,et al.  Construction policymaking: With an example of singaporean government’s policy to diffuse prefabrication to private sector , 2011 .

[28]  Lucas Reijnders,et al.  Comprehensiveness and adequacy of tools for the environmental improvement of buildings , 1999 .

[29]  Carl T. Haas,et al.  Considering prework on industrial projects , 2005 .

[30]  Joseph E. Aldy,et al.  The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates Throughout the World , 2003 .

[31]  Liyin Shen,et al.  Application of low waste technologies for design and construction: A case study in Hong Kong , 2012 .

[32]  Zhuguo Li.  A new life cycle impact assessment approach for buildings , 2006 .

[33]  Gang Li,et al.  Multiple criteria data envelopment analysis for full ranking units associated to environment impact assessment , 2006 .

[34]  Xiaomin Yang,et al.  BEPAS—a life cycle building environmental performance assessment model , 2006 .