Abstract
Purpose
Hazard-resistant materials for homes promise environmental benefits, such as avoided waste and materials for repairs, which can be overlooked by scoping in life-cycle assessment (LCA) approaches. Our motivation for pursuing this research was to see how incorporating these avoided losses in the LCA could impact choices between hazard-resistant and traditional materials.
Methods
Two choices common in home construction were analyzed using an LCA process that incorporates catastrophe modeling to consider avoided losses made possible with hazard-resistant materials. These findings were compared to those based on a similar LCA that did not consider these avoided losses. The choices considered were standard windows vs. windows with impact-resistant glass and standard windows with no opening protection vs. standard windows with impact-resistant storm panels.
Results and discussion
For the window comparisons, the standard products were environmentally preferable when avoided losses from storm events were not considered in the LCA. However, when avoided losses were considered, the hazard-resistant products were environmentally preferable. Considering avoided losses in LCAs, as illustrated by the window choices, can change which product appears to be the environmentally preferable option. Further, as home service life increases, the environmental net benefit of the hazard-resistant product increases.
Conclusions
Our results show the value of an LCA approach which allows more complete scopings of comparisons between hazard-resistant materials and their traditional counterparts. This approach will help translate the impacts of hazard-resistant products into the more familiar language used to talk about “green” products, enabling more informed decisions by product manufacturers, those who develop building certification systems and codes, researchers, and other building industry stakeholders.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Atlanta, Georgia, was the closest location alternative to Miami. As this location is consistent for both model homes, location differences will have a negligible impact on final results. Because energy usage was calculated separately, climate differences between Atlanta and Miami do not affect operating energy results.
Global warming potential is shown since it is closely correlated with the other environmental indicators, unless the disaster-resistant product has an inordinately high contribution to any of the other key indicators, which was not the case here.
Roughly 2/3 of the overall global warming potential results from operational energy during the use of the home. Roughly 1/3 of the global warming potential results from embodied energy of the materials for the home. Of the embodied energy, roughly 3 % is from the windows themselves. The choices Marlo is making impact the embodied energy, but not the operational energy. Other hazard-resistant systems, for example, windows that included more insulation and impact resistance, may impact operational energy.
References
Aktas C, Bilec M (2012) Impact of lifetime on US residential building LCA results. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(3):337–349
Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (2010) Athena impact estimator for buildings—V4.1 software and database overview. http://www.athenasmi.org/tools/docs/ImpactEstimatorSoftwareAndDatabaseOverview.pdf. Accessed 28 Apr 2012
Bare J (2002) Developing a consistent decision-making framework by using the U.S. EPA's TRACI, National Risk Management Laboratory. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/traci/traci.html. Accessed 10 Feb 2013
Citherlet S, Di Guglielmo F, Gay J (2000) Window and advanced glazing systems life cycle assessment. Energy Build 32(3):225–234
Committee on Structural Wind Engineering (2012) Wind issues in the design of buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers Publications
Green Design Institute at Carnegie Mellon University (2012) Economic input–output life cycle assessment. http://www.eiolca.net. Accessed 28 Apr 2012
Grinsted A, Moore J, Jevrejeva S (2013) Projected Atlantic hurricane surge threat from rising temperatures. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110(14):5369–5373
Grossi P, Kunreuther H (2005) Catastrophe modeling: A new approach to managing risk. Springer, Heidelberg
Guggemos A, Horvath A (2005) Comparison of environmental effects of steel- and concrete-framed buildings. J Infrastruct Sys 11(2):93–101
ISO (2006) 14040 Environmental management-life cycle assessment-principles and framework. British Standards Institution, London
Jonsson A, Bjorklund T, Tillman A (1998) LCA of concrete and steel building frames. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(4):216–224
Ochoa L (2004) Life cycle assessment of residential buildings. Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University
Padgett J, Tapia C (2012) Examining the integration of sustainability and natural hazard risk mitigation into life cycle analyses of structures. Struct Congr 2012:1929–1940
Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):290–300
Recio J, Narváez R, Guerrero P (2005) Estimate of energy consumption and CO 2 emission associated with the production, use and final disposal of PVC, aluminum and wooden windows. Département de Projectes d’Engineyeria, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Environmental Modelling Lab, Barcelona, Spain
Salazar J, Sowlati T (2008) Life cycle assessment of windows for the North American residential market: case study. Scand J For Res 23(2):121–132
Smith A, Katz R (2013) US billion-dollar weather and climate disasters: data sources, trends, accuracy and biases. Nat Hazards 67(2):387–410
Terrachoice (2010) Sins of greenwashing: a report on environmental claims made in the North American consumer market. http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/index35c6.pdf. Accessed 10 Jun 2013
Trusty W (2011) The future of life cycle assessment (LCA) in codes. Building Safety Journal Online. http://www.icc-es.org/Education/Feb2011_BSJ_Future_of_LCA_in_Codes.pdf. Accessed 10 Jun 2013
U.S. Department of Energy (2012) Home energy saver pro. http://hespro.lbl.gov/pro/. Accessed 28 Apr 2012
UNEP (2003) Sustainable building and construction: facts and figures. UNEP Industry and Environment. http://www.uneptie.org/media/review/vol26no2-3/005-098.pdf. Accessed 10 Jun 2013
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation through their Graduate Research Fellowship Program. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors are also grateful for the opportunity to undertake an intensive research experience with Risk Management Solutions (RMS) and for access to their RiskLink software.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Barbara Nebel
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Plumblee, J., Klotz, L. Marlo’s windows: why it is a mistake to ignore hazard resistance in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19, 1173–1178 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0741-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0741-2