Abstract
Purpose
The built environment has demonstrated the limited nature of applications of consequential LCA (LCA), whereas attributional LCA (ALCA) is applied in most situations. Therefore, this study aims to clarify the contexts in which CLCA might be applied and the state of CLCA on buildings by examining the following research questions: (i) How are the goal, scope and methodological aspects and associated gaps of CLCA of buildings addressed in the literature? (ii) How can these insights guide the applications of CLCA on buildings?
Methods
The study employed the Systematic Literature Review methodology, which yielded 37 relevant studies. The study examined the sample regarding intended applications, the contexts of micro or meso/macro decision-making support, and the consequential life-cycle inventory modelling (CLCI) of time horizons, market delimitations, market volume trends, affected suppliers, constrained supplies and substitution. Furthermore, the basis for choosing either an ALCA or a CLCA approach was evaluated based on the ILCD Handbook.
Results and discussion
Many studies include an empirical assessment, yet with half of those combining it with an evaluation of selected methodological aspects, thus CLCA on buildings seems to still be in the earlier exploration phase. In general, the empirical CLCAs emphasize the decision-making aspect in the stated application of the study. Furthermore, CLCA studies show an almost equal distribution of focus between the micro and meso/macro levels of decision support. This entails that CLCA on buildings currently applies to both material- and building-level assessments and policy situations. The inclusion of CLCI modelling elements varies: e.g., nine studies only include substitution as the single CLCI element. Additionally, modelling methods are described at various levels of detail, and with critical differences in the transparency of documentation. This, therefore, suggests that the consistency of included CLCI elements is inadequate, as is how they should be modelled.
Conclusions and recommendations
Building on the ILCD Handbook, this study presents a proposal for deciding when to select CLCA on buildings. This is a proposal for a simple and clear distinction threshold between the micro and meso/macro levels. Additionally, CLCA on buildings need a more harmonized approach to CLCI modelling to increase and improve, which the built environment community could achieve by settling on a standard for the inclusion of CLCI elements and associated modelling methods.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Almeida DTL, Charbuillet C, Heslouin C, Lebert A, Perry N (2020) Economic models used in consequential life cycle assessment: a literature review. Procedia CIRP 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.01.057
Anand CK, Amor B (2017) Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: a critical review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 67:408–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.058
Brandão M, Clift R, Cowie A, Greenhalgh S (2014) The use of life cycle assessment in the support of robust (climate) policy making: comment on “using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation.” J Ind Ecol 18(3):461–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12152
Buyle M, Braet J, Audenaert A (2013) Life cycle assessment in the construction sector: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 26:379–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.001
Buyle M, Braet J, Audenaert A (2014) Life cycle assessment of an apartment building: comparison of an attributional and consequential approach. Energy Procedia 62:132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.12.374
Buyle M, Braet J, Audenaert A, Debacker W (2018a) Strategies for optimizing the environmental profile of dwellings in a Belgian context: a consequential versus an attributional approach. J Clean Prod 173:235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.114
Buyle M, Galle W, Debacker W, Audenaert A (2019a) Consequential LCA of demountable and reusable internal wall assemblies: a case study in a Belgian context. IOP Conf Earth Environ Sci. Institute of Physics Publishing, Ser. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012057
Buyle M, Galle W, Debacker W, Audenaert A (2019b) Sustainability assessment of circular building alternatives: consequential LCA and LCC for internal wall assemblies as a case study in a Belgian context. J Clean Prod 218:141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.306
Buyle M, Pizzol M, Audenaert A (2018b) Identifying marginal suppliers of construction materials: consistent modeling and sensitivity analysis on a Belgian case. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(8):1624–1640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1389-5
Collinge W, Rickenbacker H, Landis A, Thiel C, Bilec M (2018) Dynamic life cycle assessments of a conventional green building and a net zero energy building: exploration of static, dynamic, attributional, and consequential electricity grid models. Environ Sci Technol 52(19):11429–11438. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b06535
Cordier S, Robichaud F, Blanchet P, Amor B (2019) Enhancing consistency in consequential life cycle inventory throughmaterial flow analysis. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012056
de Almeida Biolchini JC, Mian PG, Natali ACC, Conte TU, Travassos GH (2007) Scientific research ontology to support systematic review in software engineering. Adv Eng Informatics 21(2):133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2006.11.006
De Rosa M, Pizzol M, Schmidt J (2018) How methodological choices affect LCA climate impact results: the case of structural timber. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(1):147–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1312-0
Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2014) Lifecycle carbon implications of conventional and low-energy multi-storey timber building systems. Energy Build 82:194–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.06.034
Drouilles J, Aguacil S, Hoxha E et al (2019) Environmental impact assessment of Swiss residential archetypes: a comparison of construction and mobility scenarios. Energy Effic 12(6):1661–1689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-019-09811-0
DS/EN ISO 14040 (2008) Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework - DS/EN ISO 14040. Danish Standards, p 20
DS/EN ISO 14044 (2008) Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines – DS/EN ISO 14044. Danish Standards
Earles JM, Halog A (2011) Consequential life cycle assessment: a review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(5):445–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0275-9
EED (2012) Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency. (November 2010), pp 1–56
Ekvall T (2000) A market-based approach to allocation at open-loop recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 29(1–2):91–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(99)00057-9
Ekvall T, Azapagic A, Finnveden G et al (2016) Attributional and consequential LCA in the ILCD handbook. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(3):293–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11367-015-1026-0
Ekvall T, Weidema BP (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess. Springer Verlag, pp 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02994190
EU (2010) Labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products & Energy Performance of buildings. Off J Eur Union 53:40
European Commission (2020) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A renovation wave for Europe - greening our buildings, creating jobs, improving lives. Off J Eur Unionfficial J Eur Union 26
Fauzi RT, Lavoie P, Tanguy A, Amor B (2021) Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of multistorey building: attributional and consequential perspectives. Build Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107836
Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T et al (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 91(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018
Forster EJ, Healey JR, Dymond CC et al (2019) Linking construction timber carbon storage with land use and forestry management practices. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 323(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012142
Frossard M, Schalbart P, Peuportier B (2020) Dynamic and consequential LCA aspects in multi-objective optimisation for NZEB design. IOP Conf Earth Environ Sci. IOP Publishing Ltd., Ser. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/588/3/032031
Ghose A, Pizzol M, McLaren SJ (2017) Consequential LCA modelling of building refurbishment in New Zealand- an evaluation of resource and waste management scenarios. J Clean Prod 165:119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.099
Gustavsson L, Dodoo A, Sathre R (2015) Climate change effects over the lifecycle of a building. Report on methodological issues in determining the climate change effects over the lifecycle of a building
Hoxha E, Habert G, Lasvaux S, Chevalier J, Le Roy R (2017) Influence of construction material uncertainties on residential building LCA reliability. J Clean Prod 144:33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.068
JRC-IEA (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) handbook - general guide for life cycle assessment - detailed guidance. First Edit Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2788/38479
Khasreen MM, Banfill PFG, Menzies GF (2009) Life-cycle assessment and the environmental impact of buildings: A review. Sustainability 1(3):674–701. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1030674
Kua HW (2012) Attributional and consequential life cycle inventory assessment of recycling copper slag as building material in Singapore. Trans Inst Meas Control 35(4):510–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142331212445262
Kua HW (2015) Integrated policies to promote sustainable use of steel slag for construction - a consequential life cycle embodied energy and greenhouse gas emission perspective. Energy Build 101:133–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.04.036
Lasvaux S, Lebert A, Achim F et al (2017) Towards guidance values for the environmental performance of buildings: application to the statistical analysis of 40 low-energy single family houses’ LCA in France. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(5):657–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1253-z
Nepal P, Skog KE, McKeever DB et al (2016) Carbon mitigation impacts of increased softwood lumber and structural panel use for nonresidential construction in the United States. For Prod J 66(1–2):77–87. https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-15-00019
Nwodo MN, Anumba CJ (2019) A review of life cycle assessment of buildings using a systematic approach. Build Environ 162(March):106290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106290
Pedinotti-Castelle M, Astudillo MF, Pineau P-O, Amor B (2019) Is the environmental opportunity of retrofitting the residential sector worth the life cycle cost? A consequential assessment of a typical house in Quebec. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 101:428–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.11.021
Pesonen HL, Ekvall T, Fleischer G et al (2000) Framework for scenario development in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(1):21–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978555
Pizzol M, Scotti M (2017) Identifying marginal supplying countries of wood products via trade network analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(7):1146–1158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1222-6
Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18(1):73–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12074
Prateep Na Talang R, Pizzol M, Sirivithayapakorn S (2017) Comparative life cycle assessment of fired brick production in Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1875–1891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1197-3
Rinne S, Syri S (2013) Heat pumps versus combined heat and power production as CO2 reduction measures in Finland. Energy 57:308–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.05.033
Röck M, Saade MRM, Balouktsi M et al (2020) Embodied GHG emissions of buildings – the hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Appl Energy 258:114107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114107
Roos A, Ahlgren S (2018) Consequential life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems – a literature review. J Clean Prod 189:358–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.233
Roux C, Schalbart P, Assoumou E, Peuportier B (2016) Integrating climate change and energy mix scenarios in LCA of buildings and districts. Appl Energy 184:619–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.043
Roux C, Schalbart P, Peuportier B (2017) Development of an electricity system model allowing dynamic and marginal approaches in LCA—tested in the French context of space heating in buildings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(8):1177–1190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1229-z
Saade MRM, Guest G, Amor B (2020) Comparative whole building LCAs: how far are our expectations from the documented evidence? Build Environ 167:106449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106449
Sacchi R (2017) A trade-based method for modelling supply markets in consequential LCA exemplified with Portland cement and bananas. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(10):1966–1980. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11367-017-1423-7
Sandberg NH, Brattebø H (2012) Analysis of energy and carbon flows in the future Norwegian dwelling stock. Build Res Inf 40(2):123–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.655071
Sandin G, Peters GM, Svanström M (2013) Life cycle assessment of construction materials: the influence of assumptions in end-of-life modelling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(4):723–731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0686-x
Sauer AS, Calmon JL (2020) Life-cycle assessment applied to buildings: gaps in knowledge. Int J Environ Stud 77(5):767–785. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2019.1704036
Scherz M, Hoxha E, Maierhofer D, Kreiner H, Passer A (2022) Strategies to improve building environmental and economic performance: an exploratory study on 37 residential building scenarios. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02073-6
Skullestad JL, Bohne RA, Lohne J (2016) High-rise timber buildings as a climate change mitigation measure - a comparative LCA of structural system alternatives. Energy Procedia. Elsevier Ltd, pp 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.112
Toth Z, Reviewed JV, Jeffries B et al (2021) Whole-life carbon: challenges and solutions for highly efficient and climate-neutral buildings. Build Perform Inst Eur. Available at: https://www.bpie.eu/. Accessed 23 Apr 2022
Turk J, Cotič Z, Mladenovič A, Šajna A (2015) Environmental evaluation of green concretes versus conventional concrete by means of LCA. Waste Manag 45:194–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.06.035
United Nations (2015) The Paris Agreement. United Nations, Paris. https://doi.org/10.4324/9789276082569-2
United Nations Environment Programme (2021) Global Status report for Buildings and Construction 2021. United Nations Environ Program. Available at: https://globalabc.org/resources/publications/2021-global-status-report-buildings-and-construction. Accessed 24 Aug 2022
Vieira PS, Horvath A (2008) Assessing the end-of-life impacts of buildings. Environ Sci Technol 4663–4669. https://doi.org/10.1021/es071345l
Weidema B (2001) Avoiding co-product allocation in life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4(3)
Weidema B (2003) Market information in life cycle assessment. Danish Environ Prot Agency Environ Proj. Available at: http://www.norlca.org/resources/780.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2022
Weidema BP (1993) Market aspects in product life cycle inventory methodology. J Clean Prod 1(3–4):161–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-6526(93)90007-x
Weidema BP, Ekvall T, Heijungs R (2009) Guidelines for application of deepened and broadened LCA. Deliverable D18 of work package 5 of the CALCAS project. Rome
Weidema BP, Frees N, Nielsen A (1999) Marginal production technologies for life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(1):48–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979395
Wohlin C (2014) Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. EASE’14 Proc 18th Int Conf Eval Assess Softw Eng
Zamagni A, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Masoni P, Raggi A (2012) Lights and shadows in consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:904–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0423-x
Funding
The authors would like to acknowledge VILLUM Fonden for the financial support of the research as a part of grant no. 00029297 and 37169.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Communicated by Alexander Passer
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Hansen, R.N., Rasmussen, F.N., Ryberg, M. et al. A systematic review of consequential LCA on buildings: the perspectives and challenges of applications and inventory modelling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 28, 131–145 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02126-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02126-w