Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating triple bottom line input–output analysis into life cycle sustainability assessment framework: the case for US buildings

  • LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

With the increasing concerns related to integration of social and economic dimensions of the sustainability into life cycle assessment (LCA), traditional LCA approach has been transformed into a new concept, which is called as life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). This study aims to contribute the existing LCSA framework by integrating several social and economic indicators to demonstrate the usefulness of input–output modeling on quantifying sustainability impacts. Additionally, inclusion of all indirect supply chain-related impacts provides an economy-wide analysis and a macro-level LCSA. Current research also aims to identify and outline economic, social, and environmental impacts, termed as triple bottom line (TBL), of the US residential and commercial buildings encompassing building construction, operation, and disposal phases.

Methods

To achieve this goal, TBL economic input–output based hybrid LCA model is utilized for assessing building sustainability of the US residential and commercial buildings. Residential buildings include single and multi-family structures, while medical buildings, hospitals, special care buildings, office buildings, including financial buildings, multi-merchandise shopping, beverage and food establishments, warehouses, and other commercial structures are classified as commercial buildings according to the US Department of Commerce. In this analysis, 16 macro-level sustainability assessment indicators were chosen and divided into three main categories, namely environmental, social, and economic indicators.

Results and discussion

Analysis results revealed that construction phase, electricity use, and commuting played a crucial role in much of the sustainability impact categories. The electricity use was the most dominant component of the environmental impacts with more than 50 % of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption through all life cycle stages of the US buildings. In addition, construction phase has the largest share in income category with 60 % of the total income generated through residential building’s life cycle. Residential buildings have higher shares in all of the sustainability impact categories due to their relatively higher economic activity and different supply chain characteristics.

Conclusions

This paper is an important attempt toward integrating the TBL perspective into LCSA framework. Policymakers can benefit from such approach and quantify macro-level environmental, economic, and social impacts of their policy implications simultaneously. Another important outcome of this study is that focusing only environmental impacts may misguide decision-makers and compromise social and economic benefits while trying to reduce environmental impacts. Hence, instead of focusing on environmental impacts only, this study filled the gap about analyzing sustainability impacts of buildings from a holistic perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ardente F, Beccali M, Cellura M, Mistretta M (2011) Energy and environmental benefits in public buildings as a result of retrofit actions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:460–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BEA (2002) Benchmark input–output data. In: U.S. Bur. Econ. Anal. http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=5&step=1#reqid=5&step=100&isuri=1&406=3&403=2&404=7. Accessed 5 Jun 2013

  • BEA (2008) 2002 Benchmark Input–output - Item Output Detail. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDYQFjAB&url=http://www.bea.gov/industry/xls/2002DetailedItemOutput.xls&ei=nxqHUbT-EIie8QSn74HgCA&usg=AFQjCNEOABYqv8MJKxkgHKmjU54cTqMCxQ&sig2=4eDqdCLk_kuEpu6PgEu9Dg. Accessed 5 May 2013

  • Beccali M, Cellura M, Fontana M et al (2013) Energy retrofit of a single-family house: life cycle net energy saving and environmental benefits. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 27:283–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilec M, Ries R, Matthews HS, Sharrard AL (2006) Example of a hybrid life-cycle assessment of construction processes. J Infrastruct Syst 12:207–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackhurst BM, Hendrickson C, Vidal JSI (2010) Direct and indirect water withdrawals for U.S. industrial sectors. Environ Sci Technol 44:2126–30

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard S, Reppe P (1998) Life cycle analysis of a residential home in Michigan. University of Michigan, Ann Arbour

    Google Scholar 

  • Building Energy DataBook (2010) Residential Sector. http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/ChapterIntro2.aspx. Accessed 5 Jun 2013

  • Building Energy Data Book (2005a) Residential sector water consumption. http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/TableView.aspx?table=8.2.1. Accessed 5 Jun 2013

  • Building Energy Data Book (2005b) Commercial sector water consumption. http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/TableView.aspx?table=8.3.1. Accessed 5 Jun 2013

  • BTS (Bureau of Transportation Statistics) (2012) Injured persons by transportation mode. Table 2–2

  • Cabeza LF, Rincón L, Vilariño V et al (2014) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 29:394–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute (2008) Economic Input–output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA). http://www.eiolca.net/index.html. Accessed 5 Jun 2013

  • Cellura M, Di Gangi A, Longo S, Orioli A (2013a) An Italian input–output model for the assessment of energy and environmental benefits arising from retrofit actions of buildings. Energy Build 62:97–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Cellura M, Guarino F, Longo S et al (2013b) The role of the building sector for reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gases: an Italian case study. Renew Energy 60:586–597

    Google Scholar 

  • CIA the Worldfact Book (2013) United States. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/countrytemplate_us.html. Accessed 5 Jun 2013

  • Cicas G, Hendrickson CT, Horvath A, Matthews HS (2007) A regional version of a US economic input–output life-cycle assessment model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:365–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Climate Leaders (2008) Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol Core Module Guidance-Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources. 3–30

  • Cuéllar-Franca RM, Azapagic A (2012) Environmental impacts of the UK residential sector: life cycle assessment of houses. Build Environ 54:86–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietzenbacher E, Lenzen M, Los B et al (2013) Input–output analysis: the next 25 years. Econ Syst Res 25(4):369–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Egilmez G, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2013) Sustainability assessment of U.S. manufacturing sectors: an economic input output-based frontier approach. J Clean Prod 53:91–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Egilmez G, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2014) Supply chain sustainability assessment of the U.S. food manufacturing sectors: a life cycle-based frontier approach. Resour Conserv Recycl 82:8–20

    Google Scholar 

  • EIA (2008) Annual Energy Outlook. In: Energy Inf. Adm. U.S. Dep. Energy. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm. Accessed 5 Jun 2013

  • EIA (2012a) Annual Energy Review. 219–252

  • EIA (2012b) Annual Energy Review. http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0605. Accessed 5 Jun 2013

  • EPA (2003) Estimating Building-Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts. 22

  • Eurostat (2008) Eurostat manual of supply, use and input–output tables. Luxembourg

  • FHWA (2002a) National Household Travel Survey Daily Travel Quick Facts. In: Natl. Househ. Travel Surv. http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/subject_areas/national_household_travel_survey/daily_travel.html. Accessed 5 Jun 2013

  • FHWA (2002b) Highway Statistics-Analysis of motor fuel use. In: U.S. Dep. Transp. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs02/mf.htm. Accessed 15 Jun 2013

  • Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T et al (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 91:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher DC, Whitehead CD, Melody M (2008) National and Regional Water and Wastewater Rates For Use in Cost-Benefit Models and Evaluations of Water Efficiency Programs. 1–19

  • Foran B, Lenzen M, Dey C (2005a) Balancing Act a triple bottom line analysis of the Australian economy volume 1. Act. CSIRO, Canberra City, p 277

    Google Scholar 

  • Foran B, Lenzen M, Dey C, Bilek M (2005b) Integrating sustainable chain management with triple bottom line accounting. Ecol Econ 52:143–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Frontline Risk Solver (2013) Version 12.0. Frontline Systems Inc, Nevada, USA

  • GFN (2005) National footprint and biocapacity accounts. In: Glob. Footpr. Netw. http://www.footprintnetwork.org. Accessed 15 Jun 2013

  • GFN (2010) Calculation methodology for the national footprint accounts. In: Glob. Footpr. Netw. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/National_Footprint_Accounts_Method_Paper_2010.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun 2013

  • Graedel T, Allenby B (2009) Industrial ecology and sustainable engineering, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G et al (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R (2010) Sensitivity coefficients for matrix-based LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:511–520

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinonen J, Säynäjoki A, Junnila S (2011) A longitudinal study on the carbon emissions of a new residential development. Sustainability 3:1170–1189

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson C, Horvath A (2000) Resource use and environmental emissions of US construction sectors. J Constr Eng Manag 126:38–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson CT, Lester BL, Matthews HS (2006) Environmental life cycle assessment of goods and services: an input–output approach. Washington DC

  • Huang YA, Lenzen M, Weber CL et al (2009a) The role of input–output analysis for the screening of corporate carbon footprints. Econ Syst Res 21:217–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang YA, Weber CL, Matthews HS (2009b) Categorization of scope 3 emissions for streamlined enterprise carbon footprinting. Environ Sci Technol 43:8509–8515

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi S (1999) Product environmental life-cycle assessment using input–output techniques. J Ind Ecol 3:95–120

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Junnila S, Horvath A, Guggemos AA (2006) Life-cycle assessment of office buildings in Europe and the United States. J Infrastruct Syst 12:10–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny JF, Barber NL, Hutson SS et al. (2009) Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005. Circ 1344 1344:52

  • Kibert CJ (2012) Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery, 3rd ed., pp 8–9

  • Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:89–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2011) A comprehensive life cycle analysis of cofiring algae in a coal power plant as a solution for achieving sustainable energy. Energy 36:6352–6357

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2013) Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of the U.S. construction industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:958–972

    Google Scholar 

  • Kucukvar M, Noori M, Egilmez G, Tatari O (2014) Stochastic decision modeling for sustainable pavement designs. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0723-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenzen M (2000) Errors in conventional and input–output-based life-cycle inventories. J Ind Ecol 4:127–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenzen M, Murray SA, Korte B, Dey CJ (2003) Environmental impact assessment including indirect effects—a case study using input–output analysis. Environ Impact Assess Rev 23:263–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenzen M, Pade L-L, Munksgaard J (2004) CO2 multipliers in multi-region input–output models. Econ Syst Res 16:391–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Leontief W (1970) Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an input–output approach. Rev Econ Stat 52:262–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews HS, Lave LB (2000) Applications of environmental valuation for determining externality costs. Environ Sci Technol 34:1390–1395

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews HS, Hendrickson CT, Weber CL (2008) The importance of carbon footprint estimation boundaries. Environ Sci Technol 42:5839–5842

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald GW, Patterson MG (2004) Ecological footprints and interdependencies of New Zealand regions. Ecol Econ 50:49–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller RE, Blair PD (2009) Input–output analysis: foundations and extensions, 2nd edn. Cambridge University, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Noori M, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2013) A macro-level decision analysis of wind power as a solution for sustainable energy. Int J Sustain Energy. doi:10.1080/14786451.2013.854796

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2009) Sustainable critical infrastructure systems: a framework for meeting 21st century imperatives. Washington DC

  • Ochoa L, Hendrickson C, Asce M, Matthews HS (2002) Economic Input–output Life-cycle Assessment of U.S. Residential Buildings. pp 132–138

  • Ohio State University (2013) Ecologically-based life assessment (Eco-LCA). http://resilience.eng.ohio-state.edu/ecolca-cv/. Accessed 15 Jun 2013

  • Onat NC, Egilmez G, Tatari O (2014a) Towards greening the U.S. residential building stock: a system dynamics approach. Build Environ. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.03.030

    Google Scholar 

  • Onat NC, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2014b) Scope-based carbon footprint analysis of U.S. residential and commercial buildings: an input–output hybrid life cycle assessment approach. Build Environ 72:53–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters GP (2010) Carbon footprints and embodied carbon at multiple scales. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:245–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2012a) Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1653–1672

    Google Scholar 

  • Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2012b) Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2). Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1686–1697

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheuer C, Keoleian GA, Reppe P (2003) Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications. Energy Build 35:1049–1064

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma A, Saxena A, Sethi M et al (2011) Life cycle assessment of buildings: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:871–875

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharrard AL, Matthews HS, Ries RJ (2008) Estimating construction project environmental effects using an input–output-based hybrid life-cycle assessment model. J Infrastruct Syst 14:327–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Suh S, Lippiatt BC (2012) Framework for hybrid life cycle inventory databases: a case study on the building for environmental and economic sustainability (BEES) database. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:604–612

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ et al (2004) System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38:657–664

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Suh S, Ferrao P, Nhambiu J (2009) Handbook of input–output economics in industrial ecology. 219–229. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5737-3

  • Tatari O, Kucukvar M (2012) Sustainability assessment of U.S. construction sectors: ecosystems perspective. J Constr Eng Manag 138:918–922

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatari O, Nazzal M, Kucukvar M (2012) Comparative sustainability assessment of warm-mix asphalts: a thermodynamic based hybrid life cycle analysis. Resour Conserv Recycl 58:18–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Transportation Energy Databook (2011a) Car Operating Cost per Mile, 1985–2011. Table 10.13

  • Transportation Energy Databook (2011b) Fixed Car Operating Costs per Year, 1975–2011. Table 10.14

  • Turner K, Lenzen M, Wiedmann T, Barrett J (2007) Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities—part 1: a technical note on combining input–output and ecological footprint analysis. Ecol Econ 62:37–44

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Energy (2013) Alternative fuels data center—fuel properties comparison. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf. Accessed 5 Jun 2013

  • US DOC Census (2012) Value of Construction Put in Place at a Glance. http://www.census.gov/construction/c30/pdf/totsa.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun 2013

  • United Nations (1999) UN (1999) Studies in methods: handbook of national accounting. New York, USA

  • U.S. EIA (Energy Information Administration) (2013) Annual Energy Outlook 2013. Retrieved from http://eia.gov. Accessed 5 May 2013

  • USGS (2009) Use of minerals and materials in the United States from 1900 through 2006

  • Van Ooteghem K, Xu L (2012) The life-cycle assessment of a single-storey retail building in Canada. Build Environ 49:212–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Wackernagel M, Onisto L, Bello P et al (1999) National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecol Econ 29:375–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Waehrer GM, Dong XS, Miller T et al (2007) Costs of occupational injuries in construction in the United States. Accid Anal Prev 39:1258–1266

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber CL, Matthews HS (2008a) Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 42:3508–3513

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weber CL, Matthews HS (2008b) Quantifying the global and distributional aspects of American household carbon footprint. Ecol Econ 66:379–391

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiedmann T (2009) A review of recent multi-region input–output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting. Ecol Econ 69:211–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiedmann T, Lenzen M (2006) Triple-bottom-line accounting of social, economic and environmental indicators—a new life-cycle software tool for UK businesses. Bottomline pp 1–13

  • Wiedmann T, Lenzen M (2009) Unravelling the impacts of supply chains—a new triple-bottom-line accounting approach and software tool. Manag Account Clean Prod 24:65–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiedmann T, Minx J, Barrett J, Wackernagel M (2006) Allocating ecological footprints to final consumption categories with input–output analysis. Ecol Econ 56:28–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiedmann TO, Lenzen M, Barrett JR (2009) Companies on the scale: comparing and benchmarking the sustainability performance of businesses. J Ind Ecol 13:361–383

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wiedmann TO, Suh S, Feng K et al (2011) Application of hybrid life cycle approaches to emerging energy technologies—the case of wind power in the UK. Environ Sci Technol 45:5900–5907

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcock W (2005) Energy content of fuels. In: ENVIR215 Lect. notes. http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/envir215/energynumbers.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun 2013

  • Williams E (2004) Energy intensity of computer manufacturing: hybrid assessment combining process and economic input–output methods. Environ Sci Technol 38:6166–6174

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wood R, Garnett S (2010) Regional sustainability in Northern Australia—a quantitative assessment of social, economic and environmental impacts. Ecol Econ 69:1877–1882

    Google Scholar 

  • You F, Hu D, Zhang H et al (2011) Carbon emissions in the life cycle of urban building system in China—a case study of residential buildings. Ecol Complex 8:201–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A (2012) Life cycle assessment and sustainability. Int J Life Cycle Assess 86:256–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A, Guinée J, Masoni P, Heijungs R (2012) Life cycle sustainability analysis. In life cycle assessment handbook: a guide for environmentally sustainable products. doi: 10.1002/9781118528372

  • Zhang Y, Baral A, Bakshi BR (2010) Accounting for ecosystem services in life cycle assessment. Part II: toward an ecologically based LCA. Environ Sci Technol 44:2624–2631

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA

    Nuri Cihat Onat, Murat Kucukvar & Omer Tatari

Authors
  1. Nuri Cihat Onat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Murat Kucukvar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Omer Tatari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Omer Tatari.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Alessandra Zamagni

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 59 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Onat, N.C., Kucukvar, M. & Tatari, O. Integrating triple bottom line input–output analysis into life cycle sustainability assessment framework: the case for US buildings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19, 1488–1505 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0753-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0753-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation