Comparative life cycle assessment of four buildings in Greenland

Ryberg, Morten; Ohms, Pernille Krogh; Møller, Eva B.; Lading, Tove

doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108130

Cited by 33 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another study suggests looking beyond energy consumption and climate change because other environmental impacts lack sufficient examination [7]. A recent study covered several impact categories for four buildings in Greenland, though mainly covering renovation [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Readjusting the climate change hyperfocus: how expanding the scope of impact categories will affect the evaluation of wood buildings

Hansen,

Hoxha,

Andersen

et al. 2023

J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sole focus on reducing the climate impact of dwellings by using wood is neglecting other impacts on nature. Therefore, this study clarifies the potential burden shift by considering ten more impact categories than greenhouse gas emissions. It assesses four wood buildings and one reference concrete building by using the method of life cycle assessment. What stands out is that wood dwellings perform better than the concrete building in most impact categories except for abiotic depletion potential and ozone layer depletion potential (ODP). The latter also experiences an impact increase when wood is used to decrease climate impact as global warming potential (GWP). The wood dwellings have a general inverse correlation between GWP ranking and ODP and some resource use indicators where plastics and cement-based materials influence the latter. Bio-based materials’ contribution to acidification and eutrophication is more considerable than to GWP. Upon the findings, increased inclusion of impact categories among researchers and practitioners must follow to expand the knowledge base. A foundation for future conscious decisions of using wood in dwellings and the challenging debate of reaching consent of which other impact categories should attain focus for being improved.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Readjusting the climate change hyperfocus: how expanding the scope of impact categories will affect the evaluation of wood buildings

Hansen,

Hoxha,

Andersen

et al. 2023

J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the main contributors to negative environmental impacts is the construction industry. The largest emissions of greenhouse gases are produced either during the extraction of materials, transport to the construction site or because of the energy consumed during the operation of the building and because of the materials and energy required for the construction of the building and their disposal after the demolition of the building [3]. Indeed, buildings account for approximately 40% of global energy-related CO2 emissions [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental assessment of wooden roof compositions

Budajova

2023

MATEC Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The construction industry has high energy consumption and environmental impact, such as greenhouse gases, acidification, and the like, leading to concerns about the environmental impact of buildings on climate change. Sustainable and ecological construction requires innovation in materials and their durability to support a low-carbon and efficient city. The construction industry needs measures to reduce emissions, and buildings are assessed using methods such as Life Cycle Assessment, which allows for a holistic view and supports sustainable development. Timber roofs are crucial in the fight against the environmental crisis, as buildings have a significant impact on lower greenhouse gas emissions.

show abstract

“…The results indicated that the solid timber building had reductions of 18%, 1%, and 47% in the global warming, ozone depletion, and eutrophication impact categories, respectively, and the use of solid timber significantly reduced the carbon footprint of the building. Ryberg et al [ 74 ] performed an LCA on four buildings in Greenland, namely an RC building, a CLT building, a timber-frame building, and a renovation of an existing concrete building, to assess environmental impacts in the midpoint indicator and the overall damage to human health, the ecosystem quality, and resources. The results highlighted that the refurbishment of existing buildings had the lowest environmental impact on all impact categories, and the difference in environmental impacts between new building types was generally small, while the CLT and wood-frame buildings still had the best environmental performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study on Life-Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint of Hybrid, Concrete and Timber Apartment Buildings in Finland

Rinne

Ilgın

Karjalainen

2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To date, in the literature, there has been no study on the comparison of hybrid (timber and concrete) buildings with counterparts made of timber and concrete as the most common construction materials, in terms of the life cycle assessment (LCA) and the carbon footprint. This paper examines the environmental impacts of a five-story hybrid apartment building compared to timber and reinforced concrete counterparts in whole-building life-cycle assessment using the software tool, One Click LCA, for the estimation of environmental impacts from building materials of assemblies, construction, and building end-of-life treatment of 50 years in Finland. Following EN 15978, stages of product and construction (A1–A5), use (B1–B6), end-of-life (C1–C4), and beyond the building life cycle (D) were assessed. The main findings highlighted are as following: (1) for A1–A3, the timber apartment had the smallest carbon footprint (28% less than the hybrid apartment); (2) in A4, the timber apartment had a much smaller carbon footprint (55% less than the hybrid apartment), and the hybrid apartment had a smaller carbon footprint (19%) than the concrete apartment; (3) for B1–B5, the carbon footprint of the timber apartment was larger (>20%); (4) in C1–C4, the carbon footprint of the concrete apartment had the lowest emissions (35,061 kg CO2-e), and the timber apartment had the highest (44,627 kg CO2-e), but in D, timber became the most advantageous material; (5) the share of life-cycle emissions from building services was very significant. Considering the environmental performance of hybrid construction as well as its other advantages over timber, wood-based hybrid solutions can lead to more rational use of wood, encouraging the development of more efficient buildings. In the long run, this will result in a higher proportion of wood in buildings, which will be beneficial for living conditions, the environment, and the society in general.

show abstract

Comparative life cycle assessment of four buildings in Greenland

Cited by 33 publications

References 28 publications

Readjusting the climate change hyperfocus: how expanding the scope of impact categories will affect the evaluation of wood buildings

Readjusting the climate change hyperfocus: how expanding the scope of impact categories will affect the evaluation of wood buildings

Environmental assessment of wooden roof compositions

Comparative Study on Life-Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint of Hybrid, Concrete and Timber Apartment Buildings in Finland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About