基于生命周期评价方法的住宅建筑可持续发展绩效研究综述

Shahana Y. Janjua, P. Sarker, W. Biswas
{"title":"基于生命周期评价方法的住宅建筑可持续发展绩效研究综述","authors":"Shahana Y. Janjua, P. Sarker, W. Biswas","doi":"10.20900/JSR20190006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Achieving sustainable buildings is a challenging task. Building sustainability involves “green building” design and construction, taking account of both environmental elements and economic benefits, along with social obligations to the society we live in. This article aims to critically review and analyse studies of the building and construction industry that deal with aspects of sustainability, including environmental life cycle assessment, life cycle costing, social life cycle assessment and cleaner production strategies, and to examine the research gaps in order to generate recommendations for further research. About 807 refereed research articles on residential buildings published over the last 10 years (2009–2019), were downloaded, having been searched from online databases (including Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Compendex) using keywords. Building materials, embodied energy and operating energy were found to contribute chiefly to the environmental and socio-economic objectives of the construction industry. Many studies covered only the life cycle tools (such as environmental life cycle assessment, life cycle costing, and social lifecycle assessment) used in the sustainability assessment process. The “carbon footprint” concept is the most commonly used indicator in building sustainability assessments, underlining the urgent need to deploy more diverse environmental impact categories in order to avoid trade-offs among environmental, social and economic objectives. The social life cycle assessment tool needs a methodological breakthrough to improve its application in the building industry. In most of the studies, only an approximate evaluation of buildings’ service life is the main consideration in life cycle assessments, while the important factor of the quality of the materials used in buildings is often neglected. However, a methodological approach to estimate the service life of structures that considers the durability of different building components would provide a more realistic life cycle assessment. Hence it would be judicious to address the thematic and methodological gaps identified in this paper, thereby optimising the understanding and communication of life cycle outcomes in building sustainability.","PeriodicalId":275909,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sustainability Research","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"28","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Review of Residential Buildings’ Sustainability Performance Using a Life Cycle Assessment Approach\",\"authors\":\"Shahana Y. Janjua, P. Sarker, W. Biswas\",\"doi\":\"10.20900/JSR20190006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Achieving sustainable buildings is a challenging task. Building sustainability involves “green building” design and construction, taking account of both environmental elements and economic benefits, along with social obligations to the society we live in. This article aims to critically review and analyse studies of the building and construction industry that deal with aspects of sustainability, including environmental life cycle assessment, life cycle costing, social life cycle assessment and cleaner production strategies, and to examine the research gaps in order to generate recommendations for further research. About 807 refereed research articles on residential buildings published over the last 10 years (2009–2019), were downloaded, having been searched from online databases (including Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Compendex) using keywords. Building materials, embodied energy and operating energy were found to contribute chiefly to the environmental and socio-economic objectives of the construction industry. Many studies covered only the life cycle tools (such as environmental life cycle assessment, life cycle costing, and social lifecycle assessment) used in the sustainability assessment process. The “carbon footprint” concept is the most commonly used indicator in building sustainability assessments, underlining the urgent need to deploy more diverse environmental impact categories in order to avoid trade-offs among environmental, social and economic objectives. The social life cycle assessment tool needs a methodological breakthrough to improve its application in the building industry. In most of the studies, only an approximate evaluation of buildings’ service life is the main consideration in life cycle assessments, while the important factor of the quality of the materials used in buildings is often neglected. However, a methodological approach to estimate the service life of structures that considers the durability of different building components would provide a more realistic life cycle assessment. Hence it would be judicious to address the thematic and methodological gaps identified in this paper, thereby optimising the understanding and communication of life cycle outcomes in building sustainability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":275909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sustainability Research\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"28\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sustainability Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20900/JSR20190006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sustainability Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20900/JSR20190006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

摘要

实现可持续建筑是一项具有挑战性的任务。建筑可持续性涉及“绿色建筑”的设计和建造,既考虑到环境因素和经济效益,也考虑到我们对所生活的社会的社会义务。本文旨在批判性地回顾和分析建筑行业的研究,这些研究涉及可持续性的各个方面,包括环境生命周期评估、生命周期成本、社会生命周期评估和清洁生产战略,并检查研究差距,以便为进一步研究提出建议。通过关键词从在线数据库(包括Scopus、Web of Science、ScienceDirect和Compendex)中检索,下载了过去10年(2009-2019年)发表的约807篇关于住宅建筑的参考研究论文。发现建筑材料、具体能源和作业能源主要有助于建筑工业的环境和社会经济目标。许多研究只涉及可持续性评估过程中使用的生命周期工具(如环境生命周期评估、生命周期成本计算和社会生命周期评估)。“碳足迹”概念是建筑物可持续性评价中最常用的指标,它强调迫切需要部署更多样化的环境影响类别,以避免在环境、社会和经济目标之间进行权衡。社会生命周期评价工具需要在方法论上有所突破,以提高其在建筑行业中的应用。在大多数研究中,生命周期评价的主要考虑因素只是对建筑物使用寿命的近似评价,而建筑物所用材料质量这一重要因素往往被忽视。然而,考虑到不同建筑构件的耐久性来估计结构的使用寿命的方法学方法将提供更现实的生命周期评估。因此,解决本文中确定的主题和方法差距将是明智的,从而优化对建筑可持续性生命周期结果的理解和沟通。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Review of Residential Buildings’ Sustainability Performance Using a Life Cycle Assessment Approach
Achieving sustainable buildings is a challenging task. Building sustainability involves “green building” design and construction, taking account of both environmental elements and economic benefits, along with social obligations to the society we live in. This article aims to critically review and analyse studies of the building and construction industry that deal with aspects of sustainability, including environmental life cycle assessment, life cycle costing, social life cycle assessment and cleaner production strategies, and to examine the research gaps in order to generate recommendations for further research. About 807 refereed research articles on residential buildings published over the last 10 years (2009–2019), were downloaded, having been searched from online databases (including Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Compendex) using keywords. Building materials, embodied energy and operating energy were found to contribute chiefly to the environmental and socio-economic objectives of the construction industry. Many studies covered only the life cycle tools (such as environmental life cycle assessment, life cycle costing, and social lifecycle assessment) used in the sustainability assessment process. The “carbon footprint” concept is the most commonly used indicator in building sustainability assessments, underlining the urgent need to deploy more diverse environmental impact categories in order to avoid trade-offs among environmental, social and economic objectives. The social life cycle assessment tool needs a methodological breakthrough to improve its application in the building industry. In most of the studies, only an approximate evaluation of buildings’ service life is the main consideration in life cycle assessments, while the important factor of the quality of the materials used in buildings is often neglected. However, a methodological approach to estimate the service life of structures that considers the durability of different building components would provide a more realistic life cycle assessment. Hence it would be judicious to address the thematic and methodological gaps identified in this paper, thereby optimising the understanding and communication of life cycle outcomes in building sustainability.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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