Integrating life cycle assessment into the building design process - a review

F. Prideaux, K. Allacker, Robert H Crawford, A. Stephan
{"title":"Integrating life cycle assessment into the building design process - a review","authors":"F. Prideaux, K. Allacker, Robert H Crawford, A. Stephan","doi":"10.1088/2634-4505/ad3577","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The environmental effects associated with buildings are significant, and include considerable contributions towards global greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, and waste generation. Until recently, mitigation efforts have concentrated on improving the operational energy efficiency of buildings, largely ignoring embodied environmental effects. However, focusing solely on increasing energy efficiency can inadvertently cause an rise in embodied effects. It is therefore critical that embodied effects are considered alongside operational effects and are actively integrated into design decisions throughout the building design process. Life cycle assessment (LCA) can be used to achieve this, however, it is often perceived as difficult to incorporate into design workflows, or requiring specialist knowledge. Additionally, it is not always clear how well aligned LCA approaches are with the building design process. To address this gap, this study aims to provide a detailed analysis of LCA approaches, to assess how well they align with building design stages, and to identify key characteristics, including LCA tools and environmental data used to conduct assessments. A review of academic and grey literature is conducted. Three primary approaches are identified for integrating LCA into the building design process: simplified, detailed and incremental LCA. Simplified LCA uses streamlined data inputs and typically targets a specific design stage. Detailed LCA follows a traditional approach with comprehensive user inputs and results. Incremental LCA progressively evolves the assessment based on design requirements and available building data at each design stage. An analysis of each approach is performed, and key user requirements are mapped against the early design, and detailed design stages. Results reveal that no single approach fully satisfies all design requirements. Findings also highlight a lack of incremental LCA approaches and challenges operationalising these techniques. These approaches often rely on complicated methods or tools not suitable for common design workflows, or they are in early development and require additional verification before implementation.","PeriodicalId":476263,"journal":{"name":"Environmental research: infrastructure and sustainability","volume":"61 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental research: infrastructure and sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/ad3577","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The environmental effects associated with buildings are significant, and include considerable contributions towards global greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, and waste generation. Until recently, mitigation efforts have concentrated on improving the operational energy efficiency of buildings, largely ignoring embodied environmental effects. However, focusing solely on increasing energy efficiency can inadvertently cause an rise in embodied effects. It is therefore critical that embodied effects are considered alongside operational effects and are actively integrated into design decisions throughout the building design process. Life cycle assessment (LCA) can be used to achieve this, however, it is often perceived as difficult to incorporate into design workflows, or requiring specialist knowledge. Additionally, it is not always clear how well aligned LCA approaches are with the building design process. To address this gap, this study aims to provide a detailed analysis of LCA approaches, to assess how well they align with building design stages, and to identify key characteristics, including LCA tools and environmental data used to conduct assessments. A review of academic and grey literature is conducted. Three primary approaches are identified for integrating LCA into the building design process: simplified, detailed and incremental LCA. Simplified LCA uses streamlined data inputs and typically targets a specific design stage. Detailed LCA follows a traditional approach with comprehensive user inputs and results. Incremental LCA progressively evolves the assessment based on design requirements and available building data at each design stage. An analysis of each approach is performed, and key user requirements are mapped against the early design, and detailed design stages. Results reveal that no single approach fully satisfies all design requirements. Findings also highlight a lack of incremental LCA approaches and challenges operationalising these techniques. These approaches often rely on complicated methods or tools not suitable for common design workflows, or they are in early development and require additional verification before implementation.
将生命周期评估纳入建筑设计过程--综述
与建筑相关的环境影响是巨大的,包括对全球温室气体排放、能源使用和废物产生的巨大贡献。直到最近,减排工作一直集中在提高建筑物的运行能效上,在很大程度上忽视了对环境的影响。然而,仅仅关注提高能效可能会无意中导致体现效应的增加。因此,在整个建筑设计过程中,将体现效应与运行效应一并考虑并积极纳入设计决策至关重要。生命周期评估(LCA)可用于实现这一目标,但它通常被认为难以纳入设计工作流程,或需要专业知识。此外,人们并不总是清楚生命周期评估方法与建筑设计流程的一致性。为了弥补这一不足,本研究旨在对生命周期评估方法进行详细分析,评估这些方法与建筑设计阶段的匹配程度,并确定关键特征,包括用于进行评估的生命周期评估工具和环境数据。本研究对学术文献和灰色文献进行了综述。确定了将生命周期评估融入建筑设计过程的三种主要方法:简化生命周期评估、详细生命周期评估和渐进生命周期评估。简化的生命周期评估使用精简的数据输入,通常针对特定的设计阶段。详细的生命周期评估采用传统的方法,用户输入和结果都很全面。增量式生命周期评估是根据每个设计阶段的设计要求和可用建筑数据,逐步进行评估。对每种方法都进行了分析,并根据早期设计和详细设计阶段对关键用户要求进行了映射。结果表明,没有一种方法能完全满足所有设计要求。研究结果还凸显了增量生命周期评估方法的缺乏,以及这些技术在操作上面临的挑战。这些方法通常依赖于不适合普通设计工作流程的复杂方法或工具,或者它们处于早期开发阶段,需要在实施前进行额外的验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信