Evaluation for social and humanity demand on green residential districts in China based on SLCA

  • Lei Fan
  • Bo Pang
  • Yurong Zhang
  • Xiangjie Zhang
  • Yiwen Sun
  • Yuanfeng Wang



In recent years, green building has become a social hotspot and raised much concern of academic. However, traditional researches of green building mostly focused on technology, while research on social and humanity demand on green residential districts is still scarce. To complement the gap of research and reality, this paper is intended to establish a quantitative evaluation method for social humanity needs of green residential districts based on social life cycle assessment (SLCA).


Based on the SLCA method, an evaluation indicator system for social and humanity demand of green residential districts was proposed, considering different stakeholders (real estate developers, construction enterprises, community residents, and decision makers). Additionally, the adopted evaluation indicator system was applied to a practical community in China as a case study by questionnaire surveys and the method of analytic hierarchy process.

Results and discussion

Case study results show that the residents prefer to pay more for a better living environment, and the real estate developers are willing to increase the investment moderately on the projects. Meanwhile, the local government likes to support the development of green residential districts, as well.


Analysis results are in line with the social demand for high-quality living environment of Chinese residents and the public concern about buildings’ comprehensive benefits.


Case study China Green residential districts Social and humanity demand Social life cycle assessment 



The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support of 12th Five-Year National Science and Technology Support Programs of China (grant no. 2012BAJ12B03-02).


  1. Ali HH, AL Nsairat SF (2009) Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countrieS: case of Jordan. Build Environ 44(5):1053–1064Google Scholar
  2. Aparcana S, Salhofer S (2013) Development of a social impact assessment methodology for recycling systems in low-income countries. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(5):1106–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumann H, Arvidsson R, Tong H, Wang Y (2013) Does the production of an airbag injure more people than the airbag saves in traffic? J Ind Ecol 17(4):517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benoît C, Parent J, Kuenzi I, Revéret J-P (2007) Presentation: developing a methodology for social life cycle assessment: the North American tomato’s CSR case, 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management, August 27–29, Zürich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  5. Benoît-Norris C, Vickery-Niederman G, Valdivia S, Franze J, Traverso M, Ciroth A, Mazijn B (2011) Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA . Int J LCA 16(7):682–690Google Scholar
  6. Blom M, Solmar C (2009) How to socially assess biofuels: a case study of the UNEP/SETAC code of practice for social-economical LCA. Luleå University of Technology, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  7. Casado Cañeque F (2002) Evaluación de la situación laboral de empresas: El análisis del ciclo de vida como herramienta para el desarrollo sostenible. Universitat de Barcelona, Divisió de Ciències Juridíques, Economiques i Socials, Barcelona, Spain (in Spanish)Google Scholar
  8. Catherine BN, Norris GA, Aulisio D (2014) Efficient assessment of social hotspots in the supply chains of 100 product categories using the social hotspots database. Sustainability 6(10):6973–6984Google Scholar
  9. Chhipi-Shrestha GK, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2015) ‘Socializing’ sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Techn Environ Policy 17(3):579–596Google Scholar
  10. Daozhai Z (2014) Study on evaluation of building energy efficiency policies, master thesis. Department of Economics and Mangement, Jiaotong University, Beijing (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  11. Dreyer L (2009) Inclusion of social aspects in life cycle assessment of products. Technical University of Denmark, DanemarkGoogle Scholar
  12. Dreyer L, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ekener-Petersen E, Finnveden G (2013) Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part 1: a case study of a laptop computer. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):127–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fava J, Consoli F, Denson R, Dickson K, Mohin T, Vigon B (1993) A conceptual framework for life-cycle impact assessment. Workshop Report, Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and SETAC. Foundation for Environmental Education, Inc, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  15. Foolmaun RK, Ramjeeawon T (2013) Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gabriella A, Maria CL, Roberto M (2013) Social life cycle assessment as a management tool: methodology for application in tourism. Sustainability 5(8):3275–3287Google Scholar
  17. Gervásio H, da Silva LS (2013) Life-cycle social analysis of motorway bridges. Struct Infrastruct E 9(10):1019–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Golić K, Kosorić V, Furundžić AK (2011) General model of solar water heating system integration in residential building refurbishment—potential energy savings and environmental impact. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(3):1533–1544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hosseinijou SA, Mansour S, Shirazi MA (2014) Social life cycle assessment for material selection: a case study of building materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(3):620–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hu FF (2010) The comparison of green (sustainable) building evaluation standard in China, Britain and United State. Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  21. Hughes BR, Chaudhry HN, Ghani SA (2011) A review of sustainable cooling technologies in buildings. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(6):3112–3120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hunkeler D (2006) Societal LCA methodology and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee SE, Rajagopalan P (2008) Building energy efficiency labeling programme in Singapore. Energ Policy 36(10):3982–3992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee YS (2011) Lighting quality and acoustic quality in LEED-certified buildings using occupant evaluation. J Green Build 6(2):139–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li DH, Yang L, Lam JC (2013) Zero energy buildings and sustainable development implications—a review. Energy 554:1–10Google Scholar
  26. Li JN (2009) Analysis on the standard of American LEED. Constr Conserv Energ 37(1):60–64 in ChineseGoogle Scholar
  27. Lucon OD et al (2014) Buildings. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  28. Manik Y, Leahy J, Halog A (2013) Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: a case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(7):1386–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mathe S (2014) Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(8):1506–1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Menikpura SNM, Gheewala SH, Bonnet S (2012) Framework for life cycle sustainability assessment of municipal solid waste management systems with an application to a case study in Thailand. Waste Manag Res 30(7):708–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Norris G (2003) Life cycle approach to sustainable consumption: conceptual design of a methodological framework. Final report. The Society of Non-Traditional Technology (AIST), TokyoGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Brien M, Doig A, Clift R (1996) Social and environmental life cycle assessment (SELCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 1(4):231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pacheco R, Ordóñez J, Martínez G (2012) Energy efficient design of building: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16(6):3559–3573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Reveret JP (2010) Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Praene JP, David M, Sinama F, Morau D, Marc O (2012) Renewable energy: progressing towards a net zero energy island, the case of Reunion Island. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16(1):426–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rahman SM, Khondaker AN (2012) Mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance carbon capture and storage in Saudi Arabia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16(5):2446–2460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sadineni SB, Madala S, Boehm RF (2011) Passive building energy savings: a review of building envelope components. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(8):3617–3631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. UNEP (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environment Program, ParisGoogle Scholar
  39. UNEP/SETAC (2010) Methodological sheets for 31 sub-Categories of impact for a social LCA of products. Accessed October 2014
  40. Weidema Bp(2006) Social impact categories, indicators, characterization and damage modeling. Presentation for the 29th Swiss LCA Discussion ForumGoogle Scholar
  41. Yahong D (2014) Life cycle sustainability assessment modeling of building construction. The University of Hong Kong, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  42. Yao H (2009) A dynamic approach for evaluating the sustainability performance of infrastructure projects. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  43. Yip S, Hongjun L, Ling S (2013) Study on the economics of greening buildings in China. China Architecture & Building Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  44. Yuan H (2012) A model for evaluating the social performance of construction waste management. Waste Manag 32(6):1218–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yuan X, Wang X, Zuo J (2013) Renewable energy in buildings in China—a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 24(10):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zabaneh GA (2011) Zero net house: preliminary assessment of suitability for Alberta. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(6):3237–3242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zuo J, Zhao ZY (2014) Green building research–current status and future agenda: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 30(2):271–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lei Fan
    • 1
  • Bo Pang
    • 2
  • Yurong Zhang
    • 2
  • Xiangjie Zhang
    • 2
  • Yiwen Sun
    • 2
  • Yuanfeng Wang
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Civil Engineering/School of Economics and ManagementBeijing Jiaotong UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of Civil EngineeringBeijing Jiaotong UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations