Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of the U.S. construction industry

INPUT-OUTPUT AND HYBRID LCA

Abstract

Purpose

The construction industry has considerable impacts on the environment, economy, and society. Although quantifying and analyzing the sustainability implications of the built environment is of great importance, it has not been studied sufficiently. Therefore, the overarching goal of this study is to quantify the overall environmental, economic, and social impacts of the U.S. construction sectors using an economic input–output-based sustainability assessment framework.

Methods

In this research, the commodity-by-industry supply and use tables published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, as part of the International System of National Accounts, are merged with a range of environmental, economic, and social metrics to develop a comprehensive sustainability assessment framework for the U.S. construction industry. After determining these sustainability assessment metrics, the direct and indirect sustainability impacts of U.S construction sectors have been analyzed from a triple bottom-line perspective.

Results

When analyzing the total sustainability impacts by each construction sector, “Residential Permanent Single and Multi-Family Structures" and "Other Non-residential Structures" are found to have the highest environmental, economic, and social impacts in comparison with other construction sectors. The analysis results also show that indirect suppliers of construction sectors have the largest sustainability impacts compared with on-site activities. For example, for all U.S. construction sectors, on-site construction processes are found to be responsible for less than 5 % of total water consumption, whereas about 95 % of total water use can be attributed to indirect suppliers. In addition, Scope 3 emissions are responsible for the highest carbon emissions compared with Scopes 1 and 2. Therefore, using narrowly defined system boundaries by ignoring supply chain-related impacts can result in underestimation of triple bottom-line sustainability impacts of the U.S. construction industry.

Conclusions

Life cycle assessment (LCA) studies that consider all dimensions of sustainability impacts of civil infrastructures are still limited, and the current research is an important attempt to analyze the triple bottom-line sustainability impacts of the U.S. construction sectors in a holistic way. We believe that this comprehensive sustainability assessment model will complement previous LCA studies on resource consumption of U.S. construction sectors by evaluating them not only from environmental standpoint, but also from economic and social perspectives.

Keywords

Economic input–output analysis Life cycle assessment Sustainability assessment Triple bottom line U.S. construction industry 

References

  1. BEA (2002) Benchmark input–output data. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. http://www.bea.gov/industry/io_benchmark.htm. Accessed January 5, 2012
  2. BEA (2010) Gross domestic product by industry accounts. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_industry.cfm. Accessed January 5, 2012
  3. Bilec M, Ries R, Matthews HS, Sharrard AL (2006) Example of a hybrid life-cycle assessment of construction processes. J Infrast Syst 12:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackhurst BM, Hendrickson CT, Vidal JSI (2010) Direct and indirect water withdrawals for U.S. industrial sectors. Environ Sci Technol 44:2126–2130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BLS (2002) Industry injury and illness data. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshsum.htm. Accessed 15 March 2012
  6. CMU (2002) EIO-LCA (economic input–output life cycle assessment). http://www.eiolca.net/cgi-bin/dft/display.pl. Accessed 5 January 2012
  7. EIA (2010) Historical data series - total energy-related carbon dioxide by end-use sector and the electric power sector by fuel type. U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/excel/historical_co2.xls. Accessed 5 January 2012
  8. Eurostat (2008) Eurostat manual of supply, use and input–output tables. European Commission, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  9. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 91:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foran B, Lenzen M, Dey C (2005) A triple bottom line analysis of the Australian economy. In Csiro (ed) Balancing Act. 1:1–111Google Scholar
  11. Forsberg A, Malmborg F (2004) Tools for environmental assessment of the built environment. Build Environ 39:223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. GFN (2010a) National footprint accounts: ecological footprint and bio-capacity. Global Footprint Network.http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_for_nations/.Accessed February 15 2012
  13. GFN (2010b) Calculation methodology for the national footprint accounts. Global Footprint Network.http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/National_Footprint_Accounts_Method_Paper_2010.pdf. Accessed 15 February 2012
  14. Gradel T, Allenby B (2009) Industrial ecology and sustainable engineering, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  15. Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Zamagni A, Masoni P, Buonamici R, Ekvall T, Rydberg T (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present and future. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haapio A, Viitaniemi P (2008) A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Env Imp Asses Rev 28:469–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hendrickson CT, Horvath A (2000) Resource use and environmental emissions of US construction sectors. J Constr Eng Manage 126:38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hendrickson CT, Lave LB, Matthews S (2005) Environmental life cycle assessment of goods and services: an input–output approach, 1st edn. RFF Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Hertwich EG, Peters GP (2009) Carbon footprint of nations: a global trade-linked analysis. Environ Sci Technol 43:6414–6420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Horvath A (2004) Construction materials and the environment. Annu Rev Environ Resour 29:181–2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huang YA, Lenzen M, Weber C, Murray J, Matthews HS (2009a) The role of input–output analysis for the screening of corporate carbon footprints. Econ Syst Res 21:217–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huang YA, Weber C, Matthews HS (2009b) Categorization of scope 3 emissions for streamlined enterprise carbon footprinting. Environ Sci Technol 43:8509–8515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huppes G, Koning A, Suh S, Heijungs R, Van Oers L, Guinee JB (2008) Environmental impacts of consumption in the European Union: high-resolution input–output tables with detailed environmental extensions. J Ind Ecol 10:129–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joshi S (2000) Product environmental life cycle assessment using input–output techniques. J Ind Ecol 3:95–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Junnila S, Horvath A (2003) Life-cycle environmental effects of an office building. J Infrast Syst 9:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lenzen M, Murray S (2001) A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia. Ecol Econ 37:229–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lenzen M, Dey CJ (2002) Economic, energy and emissions impacts of some consumer choices, technologies and government outlays. Energ Econ 24:377–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lenzen M, Murray SA, Korte B, Dey CJ (2003) Environmental impact assessment including indirect effects: a case study using input–output analysis. Environ Imp Assess Rev 23:263–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lenzen M, Pade L, Munksgaard J (2004) CO2 multipliers in single-region and multi-region input–output models. Econ Syst Res 16:391–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leontief W (1936) Quantitative input and output relations in the economic system of the United States. Rev Econ Stat 18:105–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leontief W (1970) Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an input–output approach. Rev Econ Stat 52:262–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lippiat B (2007) BEES 4.0: Building for environmental and economic sustainability technical manual and user guide. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  34. Matthews HS, Hendrickson CT, Weber CL (2008) The importance of carbon footprint estimation boundaries. Environ Sci Technol 42:5839–5842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McDonald GW, Patterson MG (2004) Ecological footprints and interdependencies of New Zealand regions. Ecol Econ 50:49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller R, Blair P (2009) Input–output analysis: foundations and extensions, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Place, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. NRC (2009) Sustainable critical infrastructure systems: a framework for meeting 21st century imperatives. Toward sustainable critical infrastructure systems: framing the challenges workshop committee. National Research Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. NRL (2012) U.S. life-cycle inventory database. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://www.lcacommons.gov/nrel/search. Accessed 5 September 2012
  39. Ochoa L, Hendrickson CT, Matthews HS (2002) Economic input–output life-cycle assessment of U.S. residential buildings. J Infrast Syst 8:132–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rebitzer G, Ekvall T, Frischknecht R, Hunkeler D, Norris G, Rydberg T, Schmidt WP (2004) Life cycle assessment part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ Int 30(5):701–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seo S, Hwang Y (2001) Estimation of CO2 emissions in life cycle of residential buildings. J Constr Eng Manage 127(5):414–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sharrard AL, Matthews HS, Ries RJ (2005) Estimating construction project environmental effects using an input–output-based hybrid life-cycle assessment model. J Infrast Syst 14:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ, Hondo H, Horvath A, Huppes G et al (2004) System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38(3):657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Suh S, Lippiat 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 17:604–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tatari O, Kucukvar M (2012a) Eco-efficiency of construction materials: a data envelopment analysis. J Constr Eng Manage 138(6):733–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tatari O, Kucukvar M (2012b) Sustainability assessment of U.S. construction industry: an ecosystems perspective. J Constr Eng Manage 138(8):918–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tatari O, Nazzal M, Kucukvar M (2012) Comparative sustainability assessment of warm-mix asphalts: a thermodynamic based hybrid life cycle analysis. Res Conser Recy 58:18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. UN (1999) Studies in methods: handbook of national accounting. United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  49. UNEP (2012) 21 Issues for the 21st century: result of the UNEP foresight process on emerging environmental issues. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  50. U.S. EPA (2010) Buildings and the environment: a statistical summary. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  51. USGBC (2009) LEED 2009 for new construction and major renovations rating system. United States Green Building Council, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  52. Wachsmann U, Wood R, Lenzen M, Schaeffer R (2009) Structural decomposition of energy use in Brazil from 1970 to 1996. App Energ 86:578–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wackernagel M (2009) Methodological advancements in footprint analysis. Ecol Econ 68:1925–1927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Waehrer GM, Dong XS, Miller T, Haile E, Men Y (2007) Costs of occupational injuries in construction in the United States. Accid Analy Prev 39:1258–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weber CL, Matthews HS (2007) Embodied emissions in U.S. international trade: 1997–2004. Environ Sci Technol 41:4875–4881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wiedmann T, Lenzen M (2008) Unraveling the impacts of supply chains: a new triple-bottom-line accounting approach and software tool. Env Man Acc Clean Prod 24:65–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wiedmann T, Lenzen M, Barrett J (2009) Companies on the scale: comparing and benchmarking the sustainability performance of businesses. J Ind Ecol 13:361–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wiedmann T, Suh S, Feng K, Lenzen M, Acquaye A, Scott K, Barrett JR (2011) Application of hybrid life cycle approaches to emerging energy technologies—the case of wind power in the UK. Environ Sci Technol 45:5900–5907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Williams E (2004) Energy intensity of computer manufacturing: hybrid assessment combining process and economic input–output methods. Environ Sci Technol 38:6166–6174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wood R, Dey CJ (2009) Australia’s carbon footprint. Econ Syst Res 21:243–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. WRI and WBCSD (2004) Greenhouse gas protocol: a corporate accounting and reporting standard. Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  62. Zamagni A (2012) Life cycle sustainability assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:373–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Environmental and Construction EngineeringUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations