Cost-effective GHG mitigation strategies for Western Australia’s housing sector: a life cycle management approach

Lawania, Krishna; Biswas, Wahidul K.

doi:10.1007/s10098-016-1217-9

Cited by 11 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The estimated annual energy used was multiplied by the relative energy market forecasts up to 2040 (Economics 2015; Jacobs 2016) and the future method of calculation to extend the estimated costs of energy from 2040 to 2066 (a 50 year lifetime). Equation 3 was used to determine the present operational costs over a 50 year, although the future costs were then discounted by 7% as a nominal per year (Lawania & Biswas 2016).…”

Section: Operational and Maintenance Cost Assessment Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated life cycle cost method for sustainable structural design by focusing on a benchmark office building in Australia

Robati

McCarthy

Kokogiannakis

2018

Energy and Buildings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cost has been traditionally known as a key factor that needs to be considered in the decision making process. Recent awareness in environmental problems has highlighted the need for considering environmental impacts into the process of making choices. However, far too little attention has been paid to reflect the environmental impact and the building cost into the decision making process. As such, this study proposed a method that integrates and considers the environmental cost and building cost in the structural design process. This method takes into account the cost associated with building materials, construction methods and amount of embodied carbon emission during the life cycle of buildings. The current study analysed the effects of two construction systems (Flat slab and waffle slab) and two structural materials (Normal concrete and Ultra-lightweight concrete) on overall costs of a typical high rise concrete structure (15-story office building) in Australia (NS11401.1 2014). The results show that the office building designed with lightweight construction method (waffle slab) and normal concrete (Normal weight) has a lower life cycle cost (50 year lifespan) in comparison with the other design alternatives. It was found that an appropriate selecting of construction forms and type of concrete can save up to 7% of the cost of material consumption, 5% of the total energy consumption expense, and 5% of the CO 2-e emissions of the building across all five major cities. This study demonstrates a method to quantify the potential impact of Ultra-lightweight concrete has on the life cycle cost and carbon emissions of commercial buildings. The proposed methodology to assess life cycle cost and environmental impact can be used as a supporting tool in selection of efficient construction methods and structural materials over the lifetime of building.

show abstract

Section: Operational and Maintenance Cost Assessment Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated life cycle cost method for sustainable structural design by focusing on a benchmark office building in Australia

Robati

McCarthy

Kokogiannakis

2018

Energy and Buildings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Environmental product declarations (EPDs) involved the use of LCA to estimate environmental impacts for environmental declaration purposes for certification purposes [47]. ELCA helps to improve the performance of building in its entire life span by first identifying hotspots and then by applying mitigation strategies [47,48]. However, the system boundaries, functional units and scope definition are unique for each building LCA study, resulting in variation in results among studies [49][50][51].…”

Section: Environmental Life Cycle Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Service Life on the Environmental Performance of Buildings

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The environmental performance assessment of the building and construction sector has been in discussion due to the increasing demand of facilities and its impact on the environment. The life cycle studies carried out over the last decade have mostly used an approximate life span of a building without considering the building component replacement requirements and their service life. This limitation results in unreliable outcomes and a huge volume of materials going to landfill. This study was performed to develop a relationship between the service life of a building and building components, and their impact on environmental performance. Twelve building combinations were modelled by considering two types of roof frames, two types of wall and three types of footings. A reference building of a 50-year service life was used in comparisons. Firstly, the service life of the building and building components and the replacement intervals of building components during active service life were estimated. The environmental life cycle assessment (ELCA) was carried out for all the buildings and results are presented on a yearly basis in order to study the impact of service life. The region-specific impact categories of cumulative energy demand, greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption and land use are used to assess the environmental performance of buildings. The analysis shows that the environmental performance of buildings is affected by the service life of a building and the replacement intervals of building components.

show abstract

“…LCC is useful to determine the relative costeffectiveness/cost-competitiveness of various environmentally-friendly options [110]. LCC can be conducted using the same system boundaries as ELCA [111]. Due to its lack of computational structure, the use of LCC for sustainability assessment is quite often criticised [112].…”

Section: Life Cycle Costingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the building industry, LCC deals with embryonic capital, settlement, operational and disposal costs, and uses the same material and energy inventories as for ELCA. A number of research studies have developed models and frameworks to assess the economic performance of the built environment including examinations of transportation projects [113], residential buildings [114], and industrial buildings [111,115]. The concept of "green buildings" is constrained by the high costs entailed in attaining environmental and social sustainability [116,117].…”

Section: Life Cycle Costingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Residential Buildings’ Sustainability Performance Using a Life Cycle Assessment Approach

2019

J Sustain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Achieving sustainable buildings is a challenging task. Building sustainability involves "green building" design and construction, taking account of both environmental elements and economic benefits, along with social obligations to the society we live in. This article aims to critically review and analyse studies of the building and construction industry that deal with aspects of sustainability, including environmental life cycle assessment, life cycle costing, social life cycle assessment and cleaner production strategies, and to examine the research gaps in order to generate recommendations for further research. About 807 refereed research articles on residential buildings published over the last 10 years (2009-2019), were downloaded, having been searched from online databases (including Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Compendex) using keywords. Building materials, embodied energy and operating energy were found to contribute chiefly to the environmental and socioeconomic objectives of the construction industry. Many studies covered only the life cycle tools (such as environmental life cycle assessment, life cycle costing, and social lifecycle assessment) used in the sustainability assessment process. The "carbon footprint" concept is the most commonly used indicator in building sustainability assessments, underlining the urgent need to deploy more diverse environmental impact categories in order to avoid trade-offs among environmental, social and economic objectives. The social life cycle assessment tool needs a methodological breakthrough to improve its application in the building industry. In most of the studies, only an approximate evaluation of buildings' service life is the main consideration in life cycle assessments, while the important factor of the quality of the materials used in buildings is often neglected. However, a methodological approach to estimate the service life of structures that considers the durability of different building components would provide a more realistic life cycle assessment. Hence it would be judicious to address the thematic and methodological gaps identified in this paper, thereby optimising the understanding and communication of life cycle outcomes in building sustainability.

show abstract

Cost-effective GHG mitigation strategies for Western Australia’s housing sector: a life cycle management approach

Cited by 11 publications

References 17 publications

Integrated life cycle cost method for sustainable structural design by focusing on a benchmark office building in Australia

Integrated life cycle cost method for sustainable structural design by focusing on a benchmark office building in Australia

Impact of Service Life on the Environmental Performance of Buildings

A Review of Residential Buildings’ Sustainability Performance Using a Life Cycle Assessment Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About