Studies conducted by major national and international scientific bodies have indisputably concluded that the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) since the mid-20th century has led to irreversible changes in the climate. Data has shown that the contribution of the building sector accounts for 39% of these emissions. Reducing GHG emissions associated with the construction phase of buildings, or embodied carbon (EC), will prevent GHG emissions from entering the atmosphere earlier, reducing the negative impacts. However, to achieve any meaningful reduction, there is a need for consistency and accuracy in the calculations. The accuracy of these calculations is primarily tied to the accuracy of embodied carbon factors (ECF) used in the calculations, values determining the environmental impact of a product or procedure per unit weight. The emissions of any product can be calculated by performing a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). While the requirements for carrying out an LCA have been standardised in ISO14044, the lack of a definitive national ECF database in the UK means that EC calculations can vary drastically based on the chosen database. An LCA has been carried out on a standard Lidl supermarket design within the A1–A3 boundary. For the calculation, the ECFs were sourced from two different databases, using the GHG conversion factor data published in 2020 by the UK Department of Energy & Climate Change and data published in 2019 by the Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE). The latter is currently accepted as the most consistent database for carbon factors in the UK. This study showed that using a more detailed database compared to using a more general database could result in a 35.2% reduction of embodied carbon, while using more detailed data from a single database can reduce it by a further 5.5%. It is necessary to establish the most accurate baseline for embodied carbon so that any carbon reduction attempts can be as effective as possible.

Building demolition waste represents a huge environmental challenge worldwide. The environmental implications are not only associated with volume, but also with carbon embodied in the waste. These adverse environmental impacts associated with the generated waste can be minimised through appropriate waste treatment strategies. This chapter evaluates the various stages of the life cycle of demolished waste materials, the potential carbon emission reduction associated with different demolished wastes and waste treatment strategy options. An assessment framework was developed and exemplified by a case study of a supermarket building. The results showed that the processing or treatment stage generate the largest amount of carbon emission (81%) in the life cycle of demolished waste materials, whilst the transportation stage contributed the least (1%). It was further found that steel waste recycling has the greatest environmental benefits (more than 90%) compared to concrete (less than 1%). Additionally, the study revealed that landfilling waste generated the largest amount of carbon emissions compared to recycling. The findings can contribute to mitigating the environmental building demolition projects. Furthermore, the detailed assessment approach provides theoretical and methodological guidance which can be adopted to guide the quantitative analysis of other types of demolition projects globally.

The builavt environment has been a significant contributor to global carbon emissions. It, therefore, has a vital role to play in the reduction efforts of future climate change. While the design of buildings may determine future energy use for cooling, heating, and lighting during the operational stage of the building, this study aims to observe the effect of the building design on the operational as well as the whole-life carbon emissions. Past studies have focused on either the operational carbon or the embodied carbon of a building. Using a cradle-to-grave assessment of a typical UK supermarket, this study explores the relationship between embodied carbon and operational carbon. Additionally, it examines the effects of the variables between three approved construction methods of the same design on the whole life of carbon. These methods are a steel structural frame and cladding panel external wall, steel frame and poroton walls, precast concrete and glulam frame and precast concrete walls. The findings of this research will contribute to mitigation strategies for the environmental impacts of supermarket building construction whilst providing a framework for future assessment of the whole-life carbon of supermarket buildings. Employing the life cycle assessment methodology, this paper examines the potential of minimising both embodied and operational carbon by observing the whole life carbon. Highlighting the influence of the GHG emission contributing factors in each stage on each other. Additionally, the recommended methodology for the supermarket building types of this case study, could be adapted for other types of buildings. The findings could also augment carbon emission research and guide the development of supermarket buildings to low carbon intensive. Furthermore, collaboration with the industry in carrying out this research aids in adopting the findings as practical and theoretical guides for engineers and designers in reducing the building sector’s harmful environmental impact.