Advertisement

Construction Materials for the Urban Environment: Environmental Assessment of Life Cycle Performance

  • A. KyliliEmail author
  • P. A. Fokaides
Reference work entry

Abstract

The considerable lifecycle consumption of energy and raw materials of construction projects is not just a challenge faced by the construction sector; it is also an economic, environmental, and social concern, which needs immediate action. In view of that, performing an objective evaluation of the novel “greener” and sustainable construction materials for the urban environment requires a set of well-established methodologies and tools invoking reliability and validity. This chapter introduces EcoHestia, a new comprehensive environmental building material assessment tool, which addresses the assessment of the environmental performance of construction materials for the urban environment, in terms of a whole life cycle approach. A detailed literature section presents the evolution and the development towards the existing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) framework, as well as the state-of-the-art and recent trends in the implementation of LCA of ecomaterials for the construction industry. The relevant European legislation and well-established existing LCA methodologies and tools are also presented. As regards to EcoHestia, this book chapter elaborates on the motivation of development of the specific tool, the definition of its scope, as well as the methodology behind the development of its Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and the calculation of its Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) results. Within the same context, limitations commonly linked to environmental assessment tools are extensively discussed. The findings of this chapter primarily establish the usefulness of employing LCA for supporting the definition of the most energy-, material-, and cost-efficient construction materials for the built environment.

References

  1. 1.
    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2016) Chapter 6. Buildings sector energy consumption. In: International Energy Outlook 2016 (IEO2016). Available via EIA. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/index.php. Accessed 20 Aug 2017
  2. 2.
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2015) Material resources, productivity and the environment. In: OECD Green Growth Studies. Available via OECD. http://www.oecd.org/env/waste/material-resources-productivity-and-the-environment-9789264190504-en.htm. Accessed 20 Aug 2017
  3. 3.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2016) Water withdrawal by sector. In: AQUASTAT. Available via AQUASTAT. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/tables/WorldData-Withdrawal_eng.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2017
  4. 4.
    Modak, P, Wilson DC, Velis C (2015) Chapter 3: Waste management: global status. In: Global waste management outlook. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Available via UNEP. http://www.unep.org/ourplanet/september-2015/unep-publications/global-waste-management-outlook. Accessed 20 Aug 2017
  5. 5.
    International Energy Agency (IEA) (2013) Chapter 1: Buildings overview. In: Transition to sustainable buildings: strategies and opportunities to 2050. Available via IEA. http://www.iea.org/etp/buildings/. Accessed 20 Aug 2017
  6. 6.
    McGraw Hill Construction (2013) World green building trends: business benefits driving new and retrofit market opportunities in over 60 countries. In: SmartMarket report. Available via Green Building Council SA (GBCSA). http://www.gbcsa.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/WGBC-Trends-Report_2013.pdf. Accessed 17 Mar 2017
  7. 7.
    World Green Building Council (2013) The business case for green building: a review of the costs and benefits for developers, investors, and occupants. Available via World Green Building Council. http://www3.cec.org/islandora-gb/en/islandora/object/greenbuilding%3A30/datastream/OBJ-EN/view. Accessed 17 Mar 2017
  8. 8.
    Kylili A, Fokaides PA (2017) Policy trends for the sustainability assessment of construction materials: a review. Sustain Cities Soc 35:280–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sinha R, Lennartsson M, Frostell B (2016) Environmental footprint assessment of building structures: a comparative study. Build Environ 104:162–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kylili A, Fokaides PA (2016) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of phase change materials (PCMs) for building applications: a review. J Build Eng 6:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sustainable Energy Research Group (SERG) (2017) Research: EcoHestia. Available via SERG. https://www.serg-web.com/. Accessed 17 Mar 2017
  12. 12.
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040:2006. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework. Available via ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html. Accessed 17 Mar 2017
  13. 13.
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14044:2006. Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines. Available via ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html. Accessed 17 Mar 2017
  14. 14.
    Curran MA (2006) Life cycle assessment: principles and practise. National Risk Management Research Laboratory. Available via United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). https://www.epa.gov/nscep. Accessed 17 Mar 2017
  15. 15.
    Jensen AA (1998) Life cycle assessment (LCA): a guide to approaches, experiences and information sources (No. 6). In: Environmental Issues Series European Environment Agency (EEA). Available via EEA. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/GH-07-97-595-EN-C. Accessed 17 Mar 2017
  16. 16.
    Guinee JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Zamagni A, Masoni P, Buonamici R, Ekval T, Rydberg T (2010) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Filimonau V (2016) The life cycle thinking approach and the method of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-26224-6_2; Filimonau V (2016) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Analysis in Tourism (pp 9–42).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26224-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) (2011) Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment. Making informed choices on product. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative Available via UNEP Document Repository. http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/8001. Accessed 17 Mar 2017
  19. 19.
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/Technical Committee (TC) 071 (2016) ISO/TC 071 Strategic business plan. Available via European Committee for Standardization (CEN). https://standards.cen.eu/bp/1640.pdf. Accessed 17 Mar 2017
  20. 20.
    Chrysostomou C, Kylili A, Nicolaides D, Fokaides PA (2017) Life cycle assessment of concrete manufacturing in small isolated states: the case of Cyprus. Int J Sustain Energy 36:825–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van den Heede P, De Belie N (2012) Environmental impact and life cycle assessment (LCA) of traditional and ‘green’ concretes: literature review and theoretical calculations. Cem Concr Compos 34:431–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Celik K, Meral C, Gursel AP, Mehta PK, Horvath A, Monteiro PJ (2015) Mechanical properties, durability, and life-cycle assessment of self-consolidating concrete mixtures made with blended portland cements containing fly ash and limestone powder. Cem Concr Compos 56:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gursel AP, Maryman H, Ostertag C (2016) A life-cycle approach to environmental, mechanical, and durability properties of “green” concrete mixes with rice husk ash. J Clean Prod 112:823–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Teixeira ER, Mateus R, Camoes AF, Bragança L, Branco FG (2016) Comparative environmental life-cycle analysis of concretes using biomass and coal fly ashes as partial cement replacement material. J Clean Prod 112:2221–2230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Habert G, De Lacaillerie JDE, Roussel N (2011) An environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends. J Clean Prod 19:1229–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huntzinger DN, Eatmon TD (2009) A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies. J Clean Prod 17:668–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Napolano L, Menna C, Graziano SF, Asprone D, D’Amore M, de Gennaro R, Dondi M (2016) Environmental life cycle assessment of lightweight concrete to support recycled materials selection for sustainable design. Constr Build Mater 119:370–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Serres N, Braymand S, Feugeas F (2016) Environmental evaluation of concrete made from recycled concrete aggregate implementing life cycle assessment. J Build Eng 5:24–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Koroneos C, Dompros A (2007) Environmental assessment of brick production in Greece. Build Environ 42:2114–2123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kumbhar S, Kulkarni N, Rao AB, Rao B (2014) Environmental life cycle assessment of traditional bricks in western Maharashtra, India. Energy Procedia 54:260–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Giama E, Papadopoulos AM (2015) Assessment tools for the environmental evaluation of concrete, plaster and brick elements production. J Clean Prod 99:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bories C, Vedrenne E, Paulhe-Massol A, Vilarem G, Sablayrolles C (2016) Development of porous fired clay bricks with bio-based additives: study of the environmental impacts by life cycle assessment (LCA). Constr Build Mater 125:1142–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kua HW, Kamath S (2014) An attributional and consequential life cycle assessment of substituting concrete with bricks. J Clean Prod 81:190–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kumar CS, Parvathi S, Rudramoorthy R (2016) Impact categories through life cycle assessment of coal-fired brick. Procedia Technology 24:531–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Li G, Nie Z, Zhou H, Di X, Liu Y, Zuo T (2002) An accumulative model for the comparative life cycle assessment case study: iron and steel process. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:225–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    World Steel Association (2016) World steel in figures 2016. Available via Worldsteel Association. https://www.worldsteel.org/media-centre/press-releases/2016/world-Steel-in-figures-2016-is-available-online.html. Accessed 2 Jul Mar 2017
  37. 37.
    Burchart-Korol D (2013) Life cycle assessment of steel production in Poland: a case study. J Clean Prod 54:235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zygomalas I, Efthymiou E, Baniotopoulos C, Blok R (2012) A newly developed life cycle inventory (LCI) database for commonly used structural steel components. Struct Infrastructure Eng 8:1173–1181Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    World Aluminium (2017) Statistics. Available via World Aluminium. http://www.world-aluminium.org/statistics/. Accessed 2 Jul 2017
  40. 40.
    IEA (International Energy Agency)/Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2009) Energy technology transitions for industry: strategies for the next industrial revolution. Available via OECD. http://www.oecd.org/publications/energy-technology-transitions-for-industry-9789264068612-en.htm. Accessed 2 Jul 2017
  41. 41.
    Liu G, Bangs CE, Müller DB (2013) Stock dynamics and emission pathways of the global aluminium cycle. Nat Clim Chang 3:338–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhang Y, Sun M, Hong J, Han X, He J, Shi W, Li X (2016) Environmental footprint of aluminum production in China. J Clean Prod 133:1242–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Olivieri G, Romani A, Neri P (2006) Environmental and economic analysis of aluminium recycling through life cycle assessment. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 13:269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Frees N (2008) Crediting aluminium recycling in LCA by demand or by disposal. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Werner F, Richter K (2007) Wooden building products in comparative LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:470Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lippke B, Wilson J, Meil J, Taylor A (2010) Characterizing the importance of carbon stored in wood products. Wood Fiber Sci 42:5–14Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bribián IZ, Capilla AV, Usón AA (2011) Life cycle assessment of building materials: comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Build Environ 46:1133–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Guardigli L, Monari F, Bragadin MA (2011) Assessing environmental impact of green buildings through LCA methods: a comparison between reinforced concrete and wood structures in the European context. Procedia Eng 21:1199–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jablinska J, Trocka- Leszczynska E (2014) Ecology for the architecture of large hotel spaces. In: Brebbia CA, Pulselli R (eds) Eco-architecture V: harmonisation between architecture and nature. WIT Press, SouthamptonGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Porhincak M, Estokova A (2014) Analysis of buildings based on the materials LCA data. Int J Hous Sci Appl 38:115–125Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bushi L, Meil MJ (2011) A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of ½″ regular and 5/8″ type X gypsum wallboard. Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, prepared for the Gypsum Association, Inc. Available via Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. http://www.athenasmi.org/resources/publications/. Accessed 10 Jul 2017
  52. 52.
    Moraes CAM, Kieling AG, Caetano MO, Gomes LP (2010) Life cycle analysis (LCA) for the incorporation of rice husk ash in mortar coating. Resou Conservation Recycl 54:1170–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Berge B (ed) (2009) The ecology of building materials. Oxford, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kim KH (2011) A comparative life cycle assessment of a transparent composite facade system and a glass curtain wall system. Energ Buildings 43:3436–3445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Babaizadeh H, Hassan M (2013) Life cycle assessment of nano-sized titanium dioxide coating on residential windows. Constr Building Mater 40:314–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Papadopoulos AM, Giama E (2007) Environmental performance evaluation of thermal insulation materials and its impact on the building. Build Environ 42:2178–2187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zelazna A, Pawlowski A (2011) The environmental analysis of insulation materials in the context of sustainable building. In: The 8th international conference of environmental engineering, May 19–20, 2011, Vilnius, Lithuania. Available via Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Press. http://leidykla.vgtu.lt/conferences/Enviro2011/Articles/3/825-829_Zelazna_others.pdf. Accessed 10 Jul 2017
  58. 58.
    Asdrubali F, D’Alessandro F, Schiavoni S (2015) A review of unconventional sustainable building insulation materials. Sustain Mater Technol 4:1–17Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Murphy RJ, Norton A (2008) Life cycle assessments of natural fibre insulation materials. Imperial College London, prepared for the National Non-Food Crop Center (NNFCC). Available via European Industrial Hemp Association (EIHA). http://eiha.org/media/attach/372/lca_fibre.pdf. Accessed 10 Jul 2017
  60. 60.
    Uihlein A, Ehrenberger S, Schebek L (2008) Utilisation options of renewable resources: a life cycle assessment of selected products. J Clean Prod 16:1306–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Menet JL, Gruescu IC (2012) A comparative life cycle assessment of exterior walls constructed using natural insulation materials. Environ Eng Sustain Dev Entrepreneurship 1:14–21Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Batouli SM, Zhu Y, Nar M, D’Souza NA (2014) Environmental performance of kenaf-fiber reinforced polyurethane: a life cycle assessment approach. J Clean Prod 66:164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance (SPFA) (2012) Life Cycle Assessment of Spray Polyurethane Foam Insulation. Available via CertainTeed. https://www.certainteed.com/resources/SPFALCALongSummary.pdf. Accessed 12 Jul 2017
  64. 64.
    European Association of Flexible Polyurethane Foam Block Manufacturers (EUROPUR) (2015) Flexible Polyurethane (PU) Foam. In: Eco-profiles and environmental product declarations of the European plastics manufacturers. Available via PlasticsEurope. http://www.plasticseurope.org/plastics-sustainability-14017/eco-profiles.aspx. Accessed 12 Jul 2017
  65. 65.
    Schiavoni S, Bianchi F, Asdrubali F (2016) Insulation materials for the building sector: a review and comparative analysis. Renew Sust Energ Rev 62:988–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Schmidt AC, Jensen AA, Clausen AU, Kamstrup O, Postlethwaite D (2004) A comparative life cycle assessment of building insulation products made of stone wool, paper wool and flax. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Flury K, Frischknecht R, Flumroc AG (2012) Life cycle assessment of rock wool insulation. ESU-services Ltd., prepared for Flumroc AG. Available via ESU-services Ltd. http://esu-services.ch/data/public-lci-reports/lcidownload/. Accessed 23 Jul 2017
  68. 68.
    Sierra-Pérez J, Boschmonart-Rives J, Gabarrell X (2016) Environmental assessment of façade-building systems and thermal insulation materials for different climatic conditions. J Clean Prod 113:102–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Silvestre JD, de Brito J, Pinheiro MD (2011) Life-cycle assessment of thermal insulation materials for external walls of buildings. In: Cost C25-International Conference Sustainability of Constructions-Towards a better built environment, Innsbruck. Available via ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283326066_Life-Cycle_Assessment_of_Thermal_Insulation_Materials_for_External_Walls_of_Buildings. Accessed 25 Jul 2017
  70. 70.
    Audenaert A, De Cleyn SH, Buyle M (2012) LCA of low-energy flats using the eco-indicator 99 method: impact of insulation materials. Energ Buildings 47:68–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Smith R (1996) The environmental aspects of the use of PVC in building products. CSIRO Division of Chemicals and Polymers, prepared for the Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association Inc. Available via CSIRO Division of Chemicals and Polymers. http://www.frocc.org/pdf/enviromental/CSIROReportPVC1998.pdf. Accessed 28 Jul 2017
  72. 72.
    Asif M, Davidson A, Muneer T (2002) Life cycle of window materials-a comparative assessment. Millenium. Available via ResearchGate. http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/uk%20window%20frame%20lca.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2017
  73. 73.
    Salazar J, Sowlati T (2008) Life cycle assessment of windows for the north American residential market: case study. Scand J For Res 23:121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Alvarenga RA, Dewulf J, De Meester S, Wathelet A, Villers J, Thommeret R, Hruska Z (2013) Life cycle assessment of bioethanol-based PVC. Biofuels. Bioprod Biorefining 7:386–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Comanita, ED, Ghinea, C, Rosca, M, Simion, IM, Petraru, M, Gavrilescu, M (2015) Environmental impacts of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) production process. In: E-Health and Bioengineering Conference (EHB). Available via IEEE Xplore Digital Library. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7391486/. Accessed 1 Aug 2017
  76. 76.
    Spirinckx C, Aranyi S, Vanderreydt I, Vercalsteren A (2011) Sustainability aspects of plastic pipe systems; the environmental pillar of the polyvinylchloride (PVC-U) solid wall sewer pipe system. In: Congrès International sur l’Analyse du Cycle de Vie. Available via TUdelft. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A6cb87d48-5fec-4681-a0df-40d017fdec33. Accessed 1 Aug 2017
  77. 77.
    Carolin S, Vanderreydt I, Vercalsteren A, Boonen K, Peeters K (2011) Life Cycle Assessment of a PVC-U solid wall sewer pipe system (according to EN 1401). VITO NV, under the authority of The European Plastic Pipes and Fittings Association (TEPPFA). Available via TEPPFA. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e49e84e4b062d077116c87/t/552fb3c0e4b039a12638f9ed/1429189568158/PVC-solid-wall-sewer-Third-party-report-March2012.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2017
  78. 78.
    Nebel B, Alcorn A, Wittstock B (2011) Life cycle assessment: adopting and adapting overseas LCA data and methodologies for building materials in New Zealand. Prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. ISBN: 978-0-478-37560-2 (online)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ma Y, Cao L, Zhou CH, Li MB, Yue WC, Liu ZW (2011) Environmental impact assessment of typical chemical product using life cycle assessment – based on water-based paint. Environ Sci Technology 11:40Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hischier R, Nowack B, Gottschalk F, Hincapie I, Steinfeldt M, Som C (2015) Life cycle assessment of façade coating systems containing manufactured nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 17:68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Antony F, Grießhammer R, Speck T, Speck O (2016) The cleaner, the greener? Product sustainability assessment of the biomimetic façade paint Lotusan® in comparison to the conventional façade paint Jumbosil®. Beilstein J. Nanotechnology 7:2100–2115Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Abeysundra UY, Babel S, Gheewala S (2007) A decision making matrix with life cycle perspective of materials for roofs in Sri Lanka. Mater Des 28:2478–2487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Gargari C, Bibbiani C, Fantozzi F, Campiotti CA (2016) Environmental impact of green roofing: the contribute of a green roof to the sustainable use of natural resources in a life cycle approach. Agric Agric Sci Procedia 8:646–656Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Cellura M, Longo S, Mistretta M (2011) Sensitivity analysis to quantify uncertainty in life cycle assessment: the case study of an Italian tile. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:4697–4705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Abeysundara UY, Babel S, Gheewala S (2009) A matrix in life cycle perspective for selecting sustainable materials for buildings in Sri Lanka. Build Environ 44:997–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Kuruppuarachchi KABN, Ihalawatta RK, Kulatunga AK (2014) Life Cycle Assessment of two different Clay Roofing Tiles. In: Conference: Asia Pacific Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production. Available via ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302025720_Life_Cycle_Assessment_of_two_different_Clay_Roofing_Tiles. Accessed 5 Aug 2017
  87. 87.
    Cabeza LF, Barreneche C, Miró L, Morera JM, Bartolí E, Fernández AI (2013) Low carbon and low embodied energy materials in buildings: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 23:536–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Milutiene E, Staniškis JK, Krucius A, Auguliene V, Ardickas D (2012) Increase in buildings sustainability by using renewable materials and energy. Clean Technologies Environ Policy 14:1075–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Pacheco-Torgal F (2014) Eco-efficient construction and building materials research under the EU Framework Programme Horizon 2020. Constr Build Mater 51:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Kubba S (2010) Green construction project management and cost oversight. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9781856176767; Kubba S (2010) Elsevier.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-85617-676-7.00022-1
  91. 91.
    Melià P, Ruggieri G, Sabbadini S, Dotelli G (2014) Environmental impacts of natural and conventional building materials: a case study on earth plasters. J Clean Prod 80:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Milano P (2010) Environmental assessment (LCA) as guide parameter in choosing eco- efficient materials. In: CESB2010 Central EuropeTowards Sustainable Building from Theory to practice. Available via Fraunhofer-Informationszentrum Raum und Bau IRB. http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB17854.pdf. Accessed 6 Aug 2017
  93. 93.
    Christoforou E, Kylili A, Fokaides PA, Ioannou I (2016) Cradle to site life cycle assessment (LCA) of adobe bricks. J Clean Prod 112:443–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Arrigoni A, Beckett C, Ciancio D, Dotelli G (2017) Life cycle analysis of environmental impact vs. durability of stabilised rammed earth. Constr Build Mater 142:128–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EECGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast)Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/ECGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (recast)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    COM(2011)571. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Roadmap to a Resource Efficient EuropeGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    COM(2012)433. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Strategy for the sustainable competitiveness of the construction sector and its enterprisesGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    ECORYS SCS Group (2014) FWC Sector Competitiveness Studies N° B1/ENTR/06/054 – Sustainable Competitiveness of the Construction Sector. ECORYS SCS Group, prepared for Directorate-General Enterprise & Industry. Available via Directorate-General for Environment. http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/4838/attachments/1/translations/. Accessed 10 Aug 2017
  102. 102.
    COM(2014)445. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on resource efficiency opportunities in the building sectorGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    COM(2014)398. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Towards a circular economy: a zero waste programme for EuropeGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Zeschmar-Lahl B, Schoenberger H, Styles D, Galvez-Martos JL (2016) Background Report on Best Environmental Management Practice in the Waste Management Sector – Preparatory findings to support the development of an EMAS Sectoral Reference Document. BZL Kommunikation und Projektsteuerung GmbH and E3 Environmental Consultants Ltd, prepared for the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. European Commission – Joint Research Centre (JRC). Available via JRC. http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/emas/documents/WasteManagementBackgroundReport.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2017
  105. 105.
    COM(2015) 614. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Closing the loop – An EU action plan for the Circular EconomyGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    COM (2003) 302. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Integrated Product Policy Building on Environmental Life-Cycle ThinkingGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    BS EN ISO 14025:2010. Environmental labels and declarations. Type III environmental declarations. Principles and proceduresGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Kylili, Fokaides, Seduikyte (2018) Life cycle assessment of polyurethane foam. In: Rane A, Thomas S, Abitha VK, Kanny K, Thomas MG, Valutkevich A (eds) Recycling of polyurethane foams. Elsevier, London. In pressGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Haapio A, Viitaniemi P (2008) A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28:469–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Cabeza LF, Rincón L, Vilariño V, Pérez G, Castell A (2014) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 29:394–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Castellano J, Castellano D, Ribera A, Ciurana J (2014) Development of a scale of building construction systems according to CO2 emissions in the use stage of their life cycle. Build Environ 82:618–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Trusty W, Horst S (2005) LCA tools around the world (progress report on life cycle assessment). Build Des Constr 5:12–16Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Norris GA, Yost P (2002) A transparent, interactive software environment for communicating life-cycle assessment results. J Ind Ecol 5:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Erlandsson M, Borg M (2003) Generic LCA-methodology applicable for buildings, constructions and operation services-today practice and development needs. Build Environ 38:919–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Martínez-Rocamora A, Solís-Guzmán J, Marrero M (2016) LCA databases focused on construction materials: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 58:565–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Kylili A, Fokaides PA (2017) EcoHestia: a comprehensive building environmental assessment scheme, based on life cycle assessment. Procedia Environ Sci 38:515–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Kylili A, Chrysostomou C, Fokaides PA (2015) EcoHestia: a comprehensive building environmental assessment scheme, based on Life Cycle Assessment: white paper. Available via Sustainable Energy Research Group (SERG). https://www.serg-web.com/ecohestia. Accessed 17 Aug 2017
  118. 118.
    Du G, Karoumi R (2014) Life cycle assessment framework for railway bridges: literature survey and critical issues. Struct Infrastruct Eng 10:277–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Wolf MA, Pant R, Chomkhamsri K, Sala S, Pennington D (2012) The International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook. In: JRC reference reports. Available via JRC. http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/JRC-Reference-Report-ILCD-Handbook-Towards-more-sustainable-production-and-consumption-for-a-resource-efficient-Europe.pdf. Accessed 17 Aug 2017
  120. 120.
    Blengini GA, Di Carlo T (2010) The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and materials in the LCA of low energy buildings. Energ Buildings 42:869–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Finnveden G, Potting J (2014) Life cycle assessment. In: Wexler P (ed) Encyclopedia of toxicology, vol 3. Elsevier, London, pp 74–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Van der Harst E, Potting J, Kroeze C (2016) Comparison of different methods to include recycling in LCAs of aluminium cans and disposable polystyrene cups. Waste Manag 48:565–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Shen L, Worrell E, Patel MK (2010) Open-loop recycling: a LCA case study of PET bottle-to-fibre recycling. Resour Conservation Recycl 55:34–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    European Commission (EC) Document L:2013:124:TOC. Commission Recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisationsGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Institute of Environmental Science (CML) (2001) CML’s impact assessment methods and characterisation factors. Leiden University, Institute of Environmental Science (CML). Available via Leiden University. https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/research/research-output/science/cml-ia-characterisation-factors. Accessed 22 Aug 2017
  126. 126.
    Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (2017) Resources: about LCA. Available via Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. http://www.athenasmi.org/resources/about-lca/. Accessed 22 Aug 2017
  127. 127.
    Sarkis J (2012) Benchmarking and process change for green supply chain management. In: Madu CN, Kuei CH (eds) Handbook of sustainability management. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 87–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Engineering and Applied SciencesFrederick UniversityNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations