Functional unit influence on building life cycle assessment

被引:19
|
作者
de Simone Souza, Hugo Henrique [1 ]
de Abreu Evangelista, Patricia Pereira [2 ]
Medeiros, Diego Lima [3 ]
Alberti, Jaume [4 ]
Fullana-i-Palmer, Pere [4 ]
Boncz, Marc Arpad [1 ]
Kiperstok, Asher [3 ]
Goncalves, Jardel Pereira [2 ]
机构
[1] Fed Univ Mato Grosso Sul UFMS, Environm Technol Postgrad Program PGTA, Fac Engn Architecture & Urbanism & Geog FAENG, Av Costa & Silva S-N, BR-79070900 Campo Grande, MS, Brazil
[2] Fed Univ Bahia UFBA, Energy & Environm Postgrad Program PGEnAm, Rua Aristides Novis 2, BR-40210630 Salvador, BA, Brazil
[3] Fed Univ Bahia UFBA, Escola Politecn, Ind Engn Postgrad Program PEI, Rua Aristides Novis 2,6 Andar, BR-40210630 Salvador, BA, Brazil
[4] Pompeu Fabra Univ, UNESCO Chair Life Cycle & Climate Change ESCI UPF, Passeig Pujades 1, Barcelona 08003, Spain
来源
关键词
Environmental performance; Life cycle assessment; Carbon footprint; Construction sector; Residence; Functional unit; Uncertainty; ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE; RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS; CONSTRUCTION SECTOR; LCA; IMPACT; CARBON; BENCHMARKS; CHALLENGES;
D O I
10.1007/s11367-020-01854-1
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Purpose The building sector is one of the most relevant sectors in terms of environmental impact. Different functional units (FUs) can be used in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies for a variety of purposes. This paper aimed to present different FUs used in the LCA of buildings and evaluate the influence of FU choice and setting in comparative studies. Methods As an example, we compared the "cradle to grave" environmental performance of four typical Brazilian residential buildings with different construction typologies, i.e., multi-dwelling and single dwelling, each with high and basic standards. We chose three types of FU for comparison: a dwelling with defined lifetime and occupancy parameters, an area of 1 m(2) of dwelling over a year period, and the accommodation of an occupant person of the dwelling over a day. Results and discussion The FU choice was found to bias the results considerably. As expected, the largest global warming indicator (GWi) values per dwelling unit and occupant were identified for the high standard dwellings. However, when measured per square meter, lower standard dwellings presented the largest GWi values. This was caused by the greater concentration of people per square meter in smaller area dwellings, resulting in larger water and energy consumption per square meter. The sensitivity analysis of FU variables such as lifetime and occupancy showed the GWi contribution of the infrastructure more relevant compared with the operation in high and basic standard dwellings. The definition of lifetime and occupancy parameters is key to avoid bias and to reduce uncertainty of the results when performing a comparison of dwelling environmental performances. Conclusions This paper highlights the need for adequate choice and setting of FU to support intended decision-making in LCA studies of the building sector. The use of at least two FUs presented a broader picture of building performance, helping to guide effective environmental optimization efforts from different approaches and levels of analysis. Information regarding space, time, and service dimensions should be either included in the FU setting or provided in the building LCA study to allow adjustment of the results for subsequent comparison.
引用
收藏
页码:435 / 454
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Environmental life cycle assessment of building materials in the Netherlands
    SchuurmansStehmann, AM
    Bijen, JMJM
    [J]. EUROMAT 97 - PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON ADVANCED MATERIALS AND PROCESSES AND APPLICATIONS: MATERIALS, FUNCTIONALITY & DESIGN, VOL 4: CHARACTERIZATION AND PRODUCTION/DESIGN, 1997, : 361 - 365
  • [32] A taxonomy for Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment (WBLCA)
    Rodriguez, Barbara X.
    Simonen, Kathrina
    Huang, Monica
    De Wolf, Catherine
    [J]. SMART AND SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, 2019, 8 (03) : 190 - 205
  • [33] Application of Life Cycle Assessment for a residential building construction
    Pinky, L.
    Reddy, Sumanth M.
    Palaniappan, Sivakumar
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT AND CONSTRUCTION: CIVIL ENGINEERING AND BUILDINGS, 2012, 86 : 213 - 222
  • [34] Life cycle assessment of dynamic building integrated photovoltaics
    Jayathissa, P.
    Jansen, M.
    Heeren, N.
    Nagy, Z.
    Schlueter, A.
    [J]. SOLAR ENERGY MATERIALS AND SOLAR CELLS, 2016, 156 : 75 - 82
  • [35] Life cycle environmental assessment of temporary building constructions
    Grosso, Mario
    Thiebat, Francesca
    [J]. 6TH INTERNATIONAL BUILDING PHYSICS CONFERENCE (IBPC 2015), 2015, 78 : 3180 - 3185
  • [36] Dynamic life cycle assessment modelling of a NZEB building
    Asdrubali, F.
    Baggio, P.
    Prada, A.
    Grazieschi, G.
    Guattari, C.
    [J]. ENERGY, 2020, 191
  • [37] Analysis on Concept of Green Building Life Cycle Assessment
    Yang Caixia
    Yin Bo
    Han Miao
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF 2010 INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CONSTRUCTION ECONOMY AND MANAGEMENT (ISCEM2010), 2010, : 134 - 137
  • [38] Impact of building's lifesp on the life cycle assessment
    Stranska, Z.
    Struhala, K.
    [J]. LIFE-CYCLE OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS: DESIGN, ASSESSMENT, MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT, 2015, : 1910 - 1916
  • [39] Comparison of different building shells - life cycle assessment
    Rixrath, Doris
    Wartha, Christian
    [J]. INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT, 2016, 12 (03) : 437 - 444
  • [40] A Life Cycle Health Impact Assessment Model of the Building
    Kong, Xiangqin
    Li, Xiaodong
    Gao, Yuanxue
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF 2010 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CONSTRUCTION AND REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, VOLS 1-3, 2010, : 634 - 637