Development of a Life Cycle Assessment Allocation Approach for Circular Economy in the Built Environment

Transitioning the built environment to a circular economy (CE) is vital to achieve sustainability goals but requires metrics. Life cycle assessment (LCA) can analyse the environmental performance of CE. However, conventional LCA methods assess individual products and single life cycles whereas circular assessment requires a systems perspective as buildings, components and materials potentially have multiple use and life cycles. How should benefits and burdens be allocated between life cycles? This study compares four different LCA allocation approaches: (a) the EN 15804/15978 cut-off approach, (b) the Circular Footprint Formula (CFF), (c) the 50:50 approach, and (d) the linearly degressive (LD) approach. The environmental impacts of four ‘circular building components’ is calculated: (1) a concrete column and (2) a timber column both designed for direct reuse, (3) a recyclable roof felt and (4) a window with a reusable frame. Notable differences in impact distributions between the allocation approaches were found, thus incentivising different CE principles. The LD approach was found to be promising for open and closed-loop systems within a closed loop supply chain (such as the ones assessed here). A CE LD approach was developed to enhance the LD approach’s applicability, to closer align it with the CE concept, and to create an incentive for CE in the industry.

[1]  N. Bocken,et al.  Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy , 2016 .

[2]  Dieuwertje Schrijvers,et al.  Critical review of guidelines against a systematic framework with regard to consistency on allocation procedures for recycling in LCA , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[3]  Erik Brandt,et al.  Levetider af bygningsdele ved vurdering af bæredygtighed og totaløkonomi , 2013 .

[4]  Rana Pant,et al.  Allocation solutions for secondary material production and end of life recovery: Proposals for product policy initiatives , 2014 .

[5]  Anne van Stijn,et al.  Towards a circular built environment , 2019 .

[6]  M. Hekkert,et al.  Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions , 2017 .

[7]  Christoph Koffler,et al.  Tackling the Downcycling Issue—A Revised Approach to Value-Corrected Substitution in Life Cycle Assessment of Aluminum (VCS 2.0) , 2013 .

[8]  Alexander Dahlsrud.  How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions , 2008 .

[9]  Yoshihiro Adachi,et al.  Application of Markov Chain Model to Calculate the Average Number of Times of Use of a Material in Society. An Allocation Methodology for Open-Loop Recycling. Part 1: Methodology Development (7 pp) , 2006 .

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

[11]  Clay G. Nesler,et al.  Accelerating Building Efficiency: Eight Actions for Urban Leaders , 2016 .

[12]  S. Koh,et al.  Comparing linear and circular supply chains: a case study from the construction industry , 2017 .

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

[14]  W. Vermeulen,et al.  The circular economy: New or Refurbished as CE 3.0? — Exploring Controversies in the Conceptualization of the Circular Economy through a Focus on History and Resource Value Retention Options , 2017, Resources, Conservation and Recycling.

[15]  Marte Pettersen Buvik,et al.  Prior ties and trust development in project teams – A case study from the construction industry , 2015 .

[16]  Anne van Stijn,et al.  A circular economy life cycle costing model (CE-LCC) for building components , 2020, Resources, Conservation and Recycling.

[17]  Michael Russell,et al.  Drawing on Education: Using Student Drawings To Promote Middle School Improvement. , 1998 .

[18]  M. Birkved,et al.  Aalborg Universitet Life-cycle assessment of a Danish office building designed for disassembly , 2018 .

[19]  L Delem,et al.  The practical use of module D in a building case study: assumptions, limitations and methodological issues , 2019, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.

[20]  Harpa Birgisdottir,et al.  Development of LCAbyg: A National Life Cycle Assessment Tool for Buildings in Denmark , 2019, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.

[21]  V. Molina-Moreno,et al.  What Gets Measured, Gets Done: Development of a Circular Economy Measurement Scale for Building Industry , 2018, Sustainability.

[22]  Morten Birkved,et al.  Comparing life cycle assessment modelling of linear vs. circular building components , 2019, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.

[23]  A new Circular Economy Action Plan: For a cleaner and more competitive Europe , 2020 .

[24]  Sudhir Gupta,et al.  Case Studies , 2013, Journal of Clinical Immunology.

[25]  S. Olsen,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment - Theory and Practice , 2018 .

[26]  Monique L. French,et al.  Closed-loop supply chains in process industries: An empirical study of producer re-use issues , 2006 .

[27]  Morten Birkved,et al.  Dynamic Benchmarking of Building Strategies for a Circular Economy , 2019, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.

[28]  Rana Pant,et al.  The search for an appropriate end-of-life formula for the purpose of the European Commission Environmental Footprint initiative , 2017, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[29]  J. Eyckmans,et al.  Downcycling versus recycling of construction and demolition waste: Combining LCA and LCC to support sustainable policy making. , 2018, Waste management.

[30]  E. Hultink,et al.  The Circular Economy - A New Sustainability Paradigm? , 2017 .

[31]  Yong Wang,et al.  Recovery and reuse of structural products from end-of-life buildings , 2019, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability.

[32]  J Anderson,et al.  The Reporting of End of Life and Module D Data and Scenarios in EPD for Building level Life Cycle Assessment , 2019, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.

[33]  Hans-Jürgen Dr. Klüppel,et al.  The Revision of ISO Standards 14040-3 - ISO 14040: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework - ISO 14044: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines , 2005 .

[34]  Carolien Kroeze,et al.  Comparison of different methods to include recycling in LCAs of aluminium cans and disposable polystyrene cups. , 2016, Waste management.

[35]  Fenna Blomsma,et al.  Exploring Circular Strategy Combinations - towards Understanding the Role of PSS , 2018 .

[36]  Matthias Finkbeiner,et al.  Are we still keeping it “real”? Proposing a revised paradigm for recycling credits in attributional life cycle assessment , 2017, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[37]  Endrit Hoxha,et al.  Comparison of environmental assessment methods when reusing building components: A case study , 2020 .

[38]  Marc-Andree Wolf,et al.  MODELLING RECYCLING, ENERGY RECOVERY AND REUSE IN LCA , 2013 .

[39]  Francesco Pomponi,et al.  Circular economy for the built environment: A research framework , 2017 .

[40]  Morten Birkved,et al.  Upcycling and Design for Disassembly – LCA of buildings employing circular design strategies , 2019, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.

[41]  M. Hiete,et al.  Allocation of Environmental Impacts in Circular and Cascade Use of Resources—Incentive-Driven Allocation as a Prerequisite for Cascade Persistence , 2020, Sustainability.

[42]  Zampori Luca,et al.  Suggestions for updating the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method , 2019 .

[43]  S. Ulgiati,et al.  A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems , 2016 .