Impact of maintenance on life cycle impact and cost assessment for residential flooring options

  • Elizabeth MinneEmail author
  • John C. Crittenden



Most life cycle assessment (LCA) studies for flooring exclude the environmental and economic impacts incurred from the maintenance required due to uncertainty in average cleaning procedures, although some studies indicate that it may be the most significant component of the life cycle. This study investigates the impacts of maintenance on types of flooring and develops a single scoring system to compare floors based on both environmental and economic impacts.


The focus of this study was on the impact of maintenance on the life cycle of flooring choices. Maintenance data was collected from trade association studies and manufacturer’s recommendations. This data was compiled, along with data from previous flooring studies, to create a comprehensive life cycle inventory which was analyzed with the LCA software, SimaPro. A number of maintenance techniques and frequencies were tested in order to do a sensitivity analysis. An uncertainty analysis was completed using Monte Carlo simulations. A life cycle costing (LCC) analysis was used to evaluate the total present value cost of flooring including maintenance. Environmental and economic impacts were normalized to create a single score in order to compare the overall performance of flooring choices.

Results and discussion

Maintenance procedures may account for a significant portion of environmental and economic impacts of floorings. In the case of environmental scores, adding high maintenance to the life cycle can increase scores by anywhere from 31 % (hardwood) to 114 % (carpet). A sensitivity analysis of these scores shows that most of the score increase can be attributed to vacuuming. Maintenance costs considerably increase the total cost, accounting for 49 % of hardwood’s total cost and about 30 % of costs for linoleum, vinyl, and carpet. The expected service life of the home greatly influences which flooring is best, as costs and environmental scores change dynamically over time. For the expected service life of a home of 61 years, carpet has the worst and linoleum has the best overall performance.


Although averages for maintenance techniques are not currently known, ignoring maintenance as a part of the use phase presents a significant error in the comparison of flooring options environmentally and economically. Due in part to yearly maintenance effects, the flooring choice with the best overall performance changes dynamically depending on the expected service life remaining for the home.


Flooring Life cycle costing Life cycle impact assessment Lifetime Maintenance phase Residential buildings Single scoring Uncertainty analysis 



This research was supported by the Brook Byers Institute for Sustainable Systems, Hightower Chair, and the Georgia Research Alliance at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The views and ideas expressed herein are solely of the authors and do not represent the ideas of the funding agencies in any form.


  1. Aktas CB, Bilec MM (2012) Impact of lifetime on US residential building LCA results. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(3):337–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong (2012) Maintenance recommendations & procedures for commercial resilient, hardwood & laminate flooring. Armstrong Commercial Flooring, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Baitz M, Kreißig J, Byrne E, Makishi C, Kupfer T, Frees N, Bey N, Hansen MS, Hansen A, Bosch T, Borghi V, Watson J, Miranda M (2004) Life cycle assessment of PVC and of principal competing materials. European Commission, Leinfelden-EchterdingenGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpet and Rug Institute (2014a) About CRI. Accessed 20 Feb 2014
  5. Carpet and Rug Institute (2014b) Residential vacuuming. Accessed 25 Feb 2014
  6. Carpet and Rug Institute (2014c) Residential deep cleaning and selecting a carpet cleaning professional. Accessed 28 Feb 2014
  7. Cetiner I, Edis E (2014) An environmental and economic sustainability assessment method for the retrofitting of residential buildings. Energy Build 74:132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ChemDry (2014) Accessed 12 Dec 2013
  9. D&R International (2012) 2011 Buildings energy data book. US Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  10. Energy Information Administration (2011) Emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States 2009. US Department of Energy, p 22Google Scholar
  11. Energy Information Administration (2014) Electric power monthly: average retail price of electricity to ultimate customers by end-use sector. Accessed 23 Jan 2014
  12. Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Solid waste management and greenhouse gases: a life-cycle assessment of emissions and sinksGoogle Scholar
  13. Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Water on tap: what you need to knowGoogle Scholar
  14. Forbo (2008) Cleaning & maintenance of marmoleum floors. Accessed 28 Feb 2014
  15. Franke DL, Cole EC, Leese KE, Foarde KK, Berry MA (1997) Cleaning for improved indoor air quality: an initial assessment of effectiveness. Indoor Air 7(1):41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H-J, Doka G, Dones R, Heck T, Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M (2005) The ecoinvent database: overview and methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(1):3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuller S, Peterson S (1996) Life-cycle costing manual for the federal energy management program. NIST Handbook 135. Gaithersburg, Maryland, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huibregts M, Schryver AD, Stuijs J, van Zelm R (2012) ReCiPe 2008: a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint levelGoogle Scholar
  19. Günther A, Langowski H-C (1997) Life cycle assessment study on resilient floor coverings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(2):73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heijungs R, Settanni E, Guinée J (2013) Toward a computational structure for life cycle sustainability analysis: unifying LCA and LCC. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1722–1733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hofstetter P (1998) Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment: a structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere and valuesphere. Kluwer Academic, ZurichCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Homewyse (2014) Home service costs. Accessed 12 Dec 2013
  23. Hoogmartens R, Van Passel S, Van Acker K, Dubois M (2014) Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools. Environ Impact Assess 48:27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hunkeler D, Lichtenvort K, Rebitzer G, Ciroth A (2008) Environmental life cycle costing. Hunkeler D, Lichtenvort K, Rebitzer G (eds); lead authors, Ciroth A et al. Pensacola, Florida, SETAC; Boca Raton, CRCGoogle Scholar
  25. Jönsson Å (1999) Including the use phase in LCA of floor coverings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(6):321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jönsson A, Tillman A-M, Svensson T (1997) Life cycle assessment of flooring materials: case study. Build Environ 32(3):245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jørgensen A, Herrmann I, Bjørn A (2013) Analysis of the link between a definition of sustainability and the life cycle methodologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(8):1440–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–94 (with Comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes, p. 95)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kloepffer W, Ciroth A (2011) Is LCC relevant in a sustainability assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(2):99–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lippiatt B, Greig AL, Lavappa P (2010) Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES). National Institute of Standards and Technology, GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
  31. Lowes (2014) Clean hardwood floors. Accessed 28 Feb 2014
  32. Matos GR (2009) Use of minerals and materials in the United States from 1900 through 2006. US Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  33. National Center for Healthy Housing (2008) Carpets and healthy homes. Accessed 12 Dec 2013
  34. National Wood Flooring Association (2014) Frequently asked questions: care & maintenance. Accessed 28 Feb 2014
  35. Nebel B, Zimmer B, Wegener G (2006) Life cycle assessment of wood floor coverings—a representative study for the German flooring industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(3):172–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nelson AC (2004) Toward a new metropolis: the opportunity to rebuild america. The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy ProgramGoogle Scholar
  37. Office of Management and Budget (2013) Circular A-94 appendix C. White House (December 2013)Google Scholar
  38. Paulsen J (2001) Life cycle assessment for building products: the significance of the usage phase. Dissertation, Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  39. Paulsen J (2003) The maintenance of linoleum and PVC floor coverings in Sweden the significance of the usage phase in an LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):357–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Potting J, Blok K (1995) Life-cycle assessment of four types of floor covering. J Clean Prod 3(4):201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rushing AS, Kneifel JD, Lippiatt BC (2013) Energy price indices and discount factors for life-cycle cost analysis 2013. Annual supplement to NIST handbook 135 and NBS special publication 709, vol NISTIR 85-3273-28. National Institute of Standards and Technology, GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
  42. Sanz C (2012) Working with linoleum flooring. This Old HouseGoogle Scholar
  43. Soratana K, Marriott J (2010) Increasing innovation in home energy efficiency: Monte Carlo simulation of potential improvements. Energy Build 42(6):828–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Swarr TE, Hunkeler D, Klöpffer W, Pesonen HL, Ciroth A, Brent AC, Pagan R (2011) Environmental life-cycle costing: a code of practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(5):389–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. US Census Bureau (2007) Ceramic wall and floor tile manufacturing (NAICS 327122). %3DCOMP %28 %28C4*C4 %29 %2FC4 %29&STATE=ALL&COUNTY=ALL. Accessed 20 Feb 2014
  46. Woller J (1996) The basics of Monte Carlo simulations. Accessed 18 Feb 2014

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brook Byers Institute of Sustainable Systems, School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Brook Byers Institute for Sustainable SystemsGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations