Carbon Footprint of Transitional Shelters

Kuittinen, Matti; Winter, Stefan

doi:10.1007/s13753-015-0067-0

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In regard to the carbon storage of bamboo-based construction, the number of studies is clearly smaller than the number of similar studies for wood-based construction products. The climate impact studies of bamboo construction include reports on the carbon footprint of bamboo wall panels (Ramirez et al 2014), bamboo flooring (Gu et al 2019), bamboo scaffoldings (Laleicke et al 2015), or humanitarian emergency shelters made from bamboo (Kuittinen and Winter 2015). We rank the TRL of bamboo as 9, due to its wide commercial and vernacular use in construction.…”

Section: Other Bio-based Construction Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How can carbon be stored in the built environment? A review of potential options

Kuittinen

Zernicke

Slabik

et al. 2021

Architectural Science Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to reach carbon neutrality, GHG emissions from all sectors of society need to be strongly reduced. This especially applies to the construction sector. For those emissions that remain hard to reduce, removals or compensations are required. Such approaches can also be found within the built environment, but have not yet been systematically utilized. This paper presents a review of possible carbon storage technologies based on literature and professional experience. The existing technologies for storing carbon can be divided into 13 approaches. Some are already in use, many possess the potential to be scaled up, while some presently seem to only be theoretical. We propose typologies for different approaches, estimate their net carbon storage impact and maturity, and suggest a ranking based on their applicability, impact, and maturity. Our findings suggest that there is an underutilized potential for systematically accumulating atmospheric carbon in the built environment.

show abstract

Section: Other Bio-based Construction Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How can carbon be stored in the built environment? A review of potential options

Kuittinen

Zernicke

Slabik

et al. 2021

Architectural Science Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Temporary shelters normally consume substantial amounts of energy and use a wide range of resources during the energy-intensive construction and building processfrom raw material extraction and production to construction and operation, all the way to the end of a shelter's life and its consequent disposal (Obyn et al, 2015;Dabaieh, 2017a). Normally, temporary refugee housing is built to last one or two decades at most, but sometimes shelters are demolished after only two or three years, leaving behind various environmental burdens after demolition plus a high carbon footprint due to its short life span (Atmaca, 2018;Kuittinen and Winter, 2015). Using natural materials in temporary shelter construction results in low impact shelters and can be one way of reducing the negative environmental impacts accrued from construction and demolition (Dabaieh, 2017a;Kuittinen and Winter, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Normally, temporary refugee housing is built to last one or two decades at most, but sometimes shelters are demolished after only two or three years, leaving behind various environmental burdens after demolition plus a high carbon footprint due to its short life span (Atmaca, 2018;Kuittinen and Winter, 2015). Using natural materials in temporary shelter construction results in low impact shelters and can be one way of reducing the negative environmental impacts accrued from construction and demolition (Dabaieh, 2017a;Kuittinen and Winter, 2015). In addition, building shelters with natural materials and passive systems for heating, cooling and ventilation can effectively reduce carbon emissions and energy consumption while they are in use (Dabaieh, 2017b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A life cycle assessment of a ‘minus carbon’ refugee house: global warming potential and sensitivity analysis

Dabaieh

Emami

Heinonen

et al. 2020

ARCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeOver the last eight years, the Middle East has experienced a series of high profile conflicts which have resulted in over 5.6 million Syrians forced to migrate to neighbouring countries within the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region or to Europe. That have exerted huge pressure on hosting countries trying to accommodate refugees in decent shelters and in quick manner. Temporary shelters normally carry a high environmental burden due to their short lifespan, and the majority are fabricated from industrialised materials. This study assesses the carbon impact for a minus carbon experimental refugee house in Sweden using life cycle assessment (LCA) as tool. SimaPro and GaBi software were used for the calculations and the ReCiPe midpoint method for impact assessment. The results show that using local plant-based materials such as straw, reeds and wood, together with clay dug from close to the construction site, can drastically reduce the carbon footprint of temporary shelters and even attain a negative carbon impact of 226.2 kg CO2 eq/m2. Based on the results of the uncertainty importance analysis, the overall global warming potential impact without and with sequestration potential are mostly sensitive to the variability of the GWP impact of wood fibre insulation.Design/methodology/approachThe methodology is designed to calculate the GWP impact of the refugee house over its entire life cycle (production, operation and maintenance and end of life). Then, the sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the impact of input uncertainties (selection of material from the database and the method) on the total GWP impact of the refugee house with and without sequestration. The ISO standards (International Standard 14040 2006; International Standard 14044 2006) divide the LCA framework into four steps of Goal and scope, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation.FindingsThis study has shown an example for proof of concept for a low impact refugee house prototype using straw, reeds, clay, lime and wood as the principle raw materials for building construction. Using natural materials, especially plant-based fibres, as the main construction materials, proved to achieve a minus carbon outcome over the life cycle of the building. The GWP of the shelter house without and with sequestration are found to be 254.7 kg CO2 eq/m2 and -226.2 kg CO2 eq/m2, respectively.Originality/valueAs there are still very few studies concerned with the environmental impact of temporary refugee housing, this study contributes to the pool of knowledge by introducing a complete LCA calculation for a physical house prototype as a proof of concept on how using low impact raw materials for construction combined with passive solutions for heating and cooling can reach a minus carbon outcome. The GWP of the shelter house without and with sequestration are found to be 254.7 kg CO2 eq/m2 and -226.2 kg CO2 eq/m2.

show abstract

“…Kuittinen and Winter (2015) studied the carbon footprint of eight transitional shelters by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) and compared the emissions to their construction costs. They concluded that construction materials can make a remarkable difference to the carbon footprint during the production phase of the shelters.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The energy efficiency and carbon footprint of temporary homes: a case study from Japan

Kuittinen¹,

Takano

2017

IJDRBE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the energy efficiency and life cycle carbon footprint of temporary homes in Japan after the Great Eastern Tohoku Earthquake in 2011. Design/methodology/approach An energy simulation and life cycle assessment have been done for three alternative shelter models: prefabricated shelters, wooden log shelters and sea container shelters. Findings Shelter materials have a very high share of life cycle emissions because the use period of temporary homes is short. Wooden shelters perform best in the comparison. The clustering of shelters into longer buildings or on top of each other increases their energy efficiency considerably. Sea containers piled on top of each other have superb energy performance compared to other models, and they consume even less energy per household than the national average. However, there are several gaps of knowledge in the environmental assessment of temporary homes and field data from refugee camps should be collected as part of camp management. Originality/value The findings exemplify the impacts of the proper design of temporary homes for mitigating their energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions.

show abstract

Carbon Footprint of Transitional Shelters

Cited by 14 publications

References 11 publications

How can carbon be stored in the built environment? A review of potential options

How can carbon be stored in the built environment? A review of potential options

A life cycle assessment of a ‘minus carbon’ refugee house: global warming potential and sensitivity analysis

The energy efficiency and carbon footprint of temporary homes: a case study from Japan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About