Advertisement

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 24, Issue 12, pp 2272–2280 | Cite as

Environmental benchmarks for buildings: needs, challenges and solutions—71st LCA forum, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich, 18 June 2019

  • Rolf FrischknechtEmail author
  • Maria Balouktsi
  • Thomas Lützkendorf
  • Annette Aumann
  • Harpa Birgisdottir
  • Elmar Grosse Ruse
  • Alexander Hollberg
  • Matti Kuittinen
  • Monica Lavagna
  • Antonín Lupišek
  • Alexander Passer
  • Bruno Peuportier
  • Livia Ramseier
  • Martin Röck
  • Damien Trigaux
  • Dora Vancso
CONFERENCE REPORT: 71ST DISCUSSION FORUM ON LCA
  • 136 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The 71st LCA forum was held on 18 June 2019 in Zurich, Switzerland, to discuss the current status and future plans of environmental benchmarking for buildings in view of the 1.5 °C target stipulated in the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement requires a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, in fact net zero by 2050. One of the priority areas is the building stock, as it is an important source of greenhouse gas emissions. COP23, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and an increasing number of countries are extending their consideration from aspects such as energy consumption and emissions from building operation to the manufacture of construction materials and building construction. The event offered an excellent platform to exchange ideas and thoughts on existing and planned environmental benchmarking schemes for buildings.

Methods

The one day event dealt at first with life cycle assessment (LCA) approaches applied in European, Asian, Australasian and American countries to assess the environmental performance of buildings. Within a round robin test, organised within the IEA EBC (Energy in Building and Communities) Annex 72 project, 22 organisations from 21 countries assessed the environmental performance of one identical building, the be2226 office building located in Lustenau, Austria. The materials, the building technologies and the energy consumption were kept constant. This allowed to identify the main differences in LCA data used and LCA methodology applied in the national contexts. In the LCA forum, eight organisations presented the current state or future plans of an environmental benchmarking system in their home country. The systems were characterised in terms of scope, in particular (a) which types of buildings are covered; (b) which life cycle stages are included; (c) which building elements and which operational energy uses are considered; and (d) which environmental impacts are addressed. Furthermore, the default reference service life and the main source of LCA data were specified and the current or planned benchmark values for greenhouse gas emissions of residential buildings were reported.

Results and discussion

The round robin test revealed the LCA background data as one major source of difference in assessment results. Methodological and modelling choices were less important except for the Danish assessment, which applies a comparatively long reference study period (80 years for office buildings, 120 years for residential buildings) and considering future changes in the electricity mix towards 100% renewables to describe the operational electricity demand during the lifetime of the building. Most benchmarking systems presented are applied on new and retrofit residential, office and school buildings. Other use types such as shops, restaurants, universities or hospitals are covered only in few or just one country. The greenhouse gas emission benchmark for residential buildings (construction and operation) revealed a significant gap between the current level of the building benchmarks on one hand and the target of net zero CO2-eq emissions derived from the 1.5 °C scenarios of IPCC on the other. An online inquiry carried out among the audience during the event showed a preference for a per capita overall budget of 500 kg CO2-eq per year to derive greenhouse gas emission benchmarks for buildings and that life cycle-based benchmarks for buildings should be legally binding.

Conclusions

The 71st LCA forum on environmental benchmarks for buildings showed that the experts present acknowledge the net zero CO2 emission target derived from the 1.5 °C scenarios. Several countries have expertise and experience in assessing the environmental impacts of buildings. However, the current (mostly voluntary) benchmarking schemes are way too weak to support the building sector in contributing significantly to the required CO2 emission turn off. The outlook given by several speakers showed that the current benchmarks will likely be tightened and oriented on the planetary boundaries and on the scientifically defined CO2 emission budgets rather than on the technical or economic feasibility. Finally, the responsibility of governments for defining environmental requirements and targets was stressed. The event, the exchange of ideas and the discussions helped to nurture and hopefully accelerate the developments in the construction sector of the home countries of the experts and government representatives. These developments will contribute to a society whose environmental impacts remain within the carrying capacity of our planet.

Notes

References

  1. Allacker K, Castellani V, Baldinelli G, Bianchi F, Baldassarri C, Sala S (2019) Energy simulation and LCA for macro-scale analysis of eco-innovations in the housing stock. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24(6):989–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birgisdottir H, Rasmussen FN (2019) Development of LCAbyg: a national life cycle assessment tool for buildings in Denmark. In: CESB19, Prague, 2019. IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceGoogle Scholar
  3. BMUB (2019a) Assessment system for sustainable building/BNB. German Federal Ministry for the Environment Nature Conservation Building and Nuclear Safety. http://www.nachhaltigesbauen.de/sustainable-building-english-speaking-information/assessment-system-for-sustainable-building.html.
  4. BMUB (2019b) ÖKOBAUDAT. German Federal Ministry for the Environment Nature Conservation Building and Nuclear Safety. https://www.oekobaudat.de/en.html. Accessed 5 June 2019
  5. EC-JRC (2014) Indicators and targets for the reduction of the environmental impact of EU consumption: basket-of-products indicators and prototype targets for the reduction of environmental impact of EU consumption. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Ispra, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  6. Frischknecht R, Birgisdottir H, Chae CU, Lützkendorf T, Passer A, Alsema E, Balouktsi M, Berg B, Dowdell D, García Martínez A, Habert G, Hollberg A, König H, Lasvaux S, Llatas Olive C, Nygaard Rasmussen F, Peuportier B, Ramseier L, Röck M, Soust Verdaguer B, Szalay Z, Bohne RA, Bragança L, Cellura M, Chau CK, Dixit M, Francart N, Gomes V, Huang L, Longo S, Lupíšek A, Martel J, Mateus R, Ouellet-Plamondon C, Pomponi F, Ryklová P, Trigaux D, Yang W (2019) Comparison of the environmental assessment of an identical office building with national methods. Paper presented at the Sustainable built environment D-A-CH conference 2019, Graz, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  7. Hollberg A, Lützkendorf T, Habert G (2019) Top-down or bottom-up?—how environmental benchmarks can support the design process. Building and Environment 153 (April):148-157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. IEA (2019) Perspectives for the clean energy transition. IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  9. König H, De Cristofaro ML (2012) Benchmarks for life cycle costs and life cycle assessment of residential buildings. Build Res Inf 40(5):558–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lavagna M, Baldassarri C, Campioli A, Giorgi S, Dalla Valle A, Castellani V, Sala S (2018) Benchmarks for environmental impact of housing in Europe: definition of archetypes and LCA of the residential building stock. Build Environ 145:260–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lützkendorf T, Balouktsi M (2018) Principles for the development and use of benchmarks for life-cycle related environmental impacts of buildings. In: IALCCE-Konferenz: Life-cycle analysis and assessment in civil engineering—towards an integrated vision, Ghent, 28.-31.10.2018 2018Google Scholar
  12. Rasmussen FN, Birgisdottir H (2018) Life cycle assessment benchmarks for Danish office buildings. Paper presented at the IALCCE 2018, 6th International Symposium on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering, Ghent, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  13. Rasmussen FN, Ganassali S, Zimmerman RK, Lavagna M, Campioli A, Birgisdóttir H (2019) LCA benchmarks for residential buildings in Denmark and Italy—learnings from comparing two different contexts. Build Res Inf 47:833-849Google Scholar
  14. Röck M, Hollberg A, Habert G, Passer A (2018) LCA and BIM: visualization of environmental potentials in building construction at early design stages. Build Environ 140:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sala S, Benini L, Beylot A, Castellani V, Cerutti A, Corrado S, Crenna E, Diaconu E, Sanyé-Mengual E, Secchi M, Sinkko T, Pant R (2019) Consumption and consumer footprint: methodology and results. Indicators and assessment of the environmental impact of EU consumption. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.  https://doi.org/10.2760/15899 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. SIA (2017) Merkblatt 2040: SIA-Effizienzpfad Energie. Schweizerischer Ingenieur- und Architektenverein (SIA), ZürichGoogle Scholar
  17. Stadt Zürich (2017) Gemeindeordnung der Stadt ZürichGoogle Scholar
  18. Trigaux D, Allacker K, Debacker W (2019) Critical analysis of environmental benchmarks for buildings. Paper presented at the Sustainable Built Environment D-A-CH conference 2019, Graz, AustriaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tschuemperlin L, Frischknecht R (2018) Lessons learned from establishing an environmental benchmark for buildings in Switzerland. Paper presented at the IALCCE 2018, 6th International Symposium on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering, Ghent, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  20. UNFCCC (2015) Adoption of the Paris Agreement, vol FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1, ParisGoogle Scholar
  21. Vieli B, Fussen D, Müller M (2017) CO2-Budget der Schweiz. ZollikonGoogle Scholar
  22. VITO, Leuven KU, Graz TU (2018) PEF4Buildings—study on the application of the PEF method and related guidance documents to a newly office building (ENV.B.1/ETU/2016/0052LV); Deliverable D3: report on PEF study of newly built office building.  https://doi.org/10.2779/23505 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vonka M, Hájek P, Lupíšek A (2013) SBToolCZ: sustainability rating system in the Czech Republic. Int J Sustain Build Technol Urban Dev 4(1):46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rolf Frischknecht
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maria Balouktsi
    • 2
  • Thomas Lützkendorf
    • 2
  • Annette Aumann
    • 3
  • Harpa Birgisdottir
    • 4
  • Elmar Grosse Ruse
    • 5
  • Alexander Hollberg
    • 6
  • Matti Kuittinen
    • 7
  • Monica Lavagna
    • 8
  • Antonín Lupišek
    • 9
  • Alexander Passer
    • 10
  • Bruno Peuportier
    • 11
  • Livia Ramseier
    • 1
  • Martin Röck
    • 10
  • Damien Trigaux
    • 12
  • Dora Vancso
    • 13
  1. 1.treeze Ltd.UsterSwitzerland
  2. 2.Karlsruher Institut fur TechnologieKarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.Stadt ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  4. 4.Statens ByggeforskningsinstitutCopenhagenDenmark
  5. 5.World Wildlife FundZürichSwitzerland
  6. 6.Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  7. 7.Ministry of the EnvironmentHelsinkiFinland
  8. 8.Politecnico di Milano Dipartimento di Architettura Ingegneria delle Costruzioni e Ambiente CostruitoMilanItaly
  9. 9.Ceske Vysoke Uceni Technicke v PrazePragueCzech Republic
  10. 10.Technische Universitat GrazGrazAustria
  11. 11.MINES ParisTech Center for Energy efficiency of SystemsParisFrance
  12. 12.Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenThe Netherlands
  13. 13.W/EAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations