Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector?

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an established methodology that can provide decision-makers with comprehensive data on the environmental impacts of products and processes during the entire life cycle. However, the literature on building LCAs consists of highly varying results between the studies, eve...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Environmental research letters 2017-01, Vol.12 (1), p.13001
Hauptverfasser: Säynäjoki, Antti, Heinonen, Jukka, Junnila, Seppo, Horvath, Arpad
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 1
container_start_page 13001
container_title Environmental research letters
container_volume 12
creator Säynäjoki, Antti
Heinonen, Jukka
Junnila, Seppo
Horvath, Arpad
description Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an established methodology that can provide decision-makers with comprehensive data on the environmental impacts of products and processes during the entire life cycle. However, the literature on building LCAs consists of highly varying results between the studies, even when the assessed buildings are very similar. This makes it doubtful if LCA can actually produce reliable data for supporting policy-making in the building sector. However, no prior reviews looking into this issue in the building sector exist. This study includes an extensive literature review of LCA studies on the pre-use phase of buildings. The purpose of this study is to analyze the variation between the results of different studies and find out whether the differences can be explained by the contextual differences or if it is actually the methodological choices that cause the extremely high variation. We present 116 cases from 47 scientific articles and reports that used process LCA, input-output (IO) LCA or hybrid LCA to study the construction-phase GHG emissions of buildings. The results of the reviewed studies vary between 0.03 and 2.00 tons of GHG emissions per gross area. The lowest was assessed with process LCA and highest with IO LCA, and in general the lower end was found to be dominated by process LCA studies and the higher end by IO LCA studies, hybrid LCAs being placed in between. In general, it is the methodological issues and subjective choices of the LCA practitioner that cause the vast majority of the huge variance in the results. It thus seems that currently the published building LCAs do not offer solid background information for policy-making without deep understanding of the premises of a certain study and good methodological knowledge.
doi_str_mv 10.1088/1748-9326/aa54ee
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1088_1748_9326_aa54ee</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_ea83c1dac29b4e63ae2285e437848998</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2549114047</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c496t-17258f5007b158149da675edeb9be44ddf40d04c2a82b1f47530cac98ba1a1213</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UT1v3DAMNYoGaJpmzyigQ5Y6EWXpLE1FcMgXcECXyyzQEn3VwWe5kj3cv68vLtIMRScSj4-PfGRRXAG_Aa71LdRSl6YSq1tEJYk-FOdv0Md3-afic857zpVUtT4vtmvsWRdaKt3RdcQwZ8r5QP3IhhT95Igl6gI2c22IXXBHtpuCn6GeMgs9G38Sa6bQ-dDvWCY3xvT9S3HWYpfp8k-8KF4e7rfrp3Lz4_F5fbcpnTSrsYRaKN0qzusGlAZpPK5qRZ4a05CU3reSey6dQC0aaGWtKu7QGd0gIAioLornRddH3NshhQOmo40Y7CsQ085iGsPsyxLqyoFHJ0wjaVUhCaEVyarWUhujZ62vi9Zs-9dEebT7OKV-Xt8KJQ2A5LKeWXxhuRRzTtS-TQVuT3-wp0Pb06Ht8oe55dvSEuLwV_M_9Ot_0Cl1FoQFy6HiHOzg2-o3lL-Waw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2549114047</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector?</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Institute of Physics Open Access Journal Titles</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>IOPscience extra</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Säynäjoki, Antti ; Heinonen, Jukka ; Junnila, Seppo ; Horvath, Arpad</creator><creatorcontrib>Säynäjoki, Antti ; Heinonen, Jukka ; Junnila, Seppo ; Horvath, Arpad</creatorcontrib><description>Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an established methodology that can provide decision-makers with comprehensive data on the environmental impacts of products and processes during the entire life cycle. However, the literature on building LCAs consists of highly varying results between the studies, even when the assessed buildings are very similar. This makes it doubtful if LCA can actually produce reliable data for supporting policy-making in the building sector. However, no prior reviews looking into this issue in the building sector exist. This study includes an extensive literature review of LCA studies on the pre-use phase of buildings. The purpose of this study is to analyze the variation between the results of different studies and find out whether the differences can be explained by the contextual differences or if it is actually the methodological choices that cause the extremely high variation. We present 116 cases from 47 scientific articles and reports that used process LCA, input-output (IO) LCA or hybrid LCA to study the construction-phase GHG emissions of buildings. The results of the reviewed studies vary between 0.03 and 2.00 tons of GHG emissions per gross area. The lowest was assessed with process LCA and highest with IO LCA, and in general the lower end was found to be dominated by process LCA studies and the higher end by IO LCA studies, hybrid LCAs being placed in between. In general, it is the methodological issues and subjective choices of the LCA practitioner that cause the vast majority of the huge variance in the results. It thus seems that currently the published building LCAs do not offer solid background information for policy-making without deep understanding of the premises of a certain study and good methodological knowledge.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1748-9326</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1748-9326</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa54ee</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ERLNAL</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bristol: IOP Publishing</publisher><subject>building ; Buildings ; Construction ; Decision making ; embodied ; Environmental impact ; GHG emissions ; Greenhouse gases ; Life cycle analysis ; Life cycle assessment ; Life cycles ; literature review ; Literature reviews ; Scientific papers</subject><ispartof>Environmental research letters, 2017-01, Vol.12 (1), p.13001</ispartof><rights>2017 IOP Publishing Ltd</rights><rights>2017. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c496t-17258f5007b158149da675edeb9be44ddf40d04c2a82b1f47530cac98ba1a1213</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c496t-17258f5007b158149da675edeb9be44ddf40d04c2a82b1f47530cac98ba1a1213</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa54ee/pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Giop$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,864,2102,27924,27925,38868,38890,53840,53867</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Säynäjoki, Antti</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heinonen, Jukka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Junnila, Seppo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horvath, Arpad</creatorcontrib><title>Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector?</title><title>Environmental research letters</title><addtitle>ERL</addtitle><addtitle>Environ. Res. Lett</addtitle><description>Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an established methodology that can provide decision-makers with comprehensive data on the environmental impacts of products and processes during the entire life cycle. However, the literature on building LCAs consists of highly varying results between the studies, even when the assessed buildings are very similar. This makes it doubtful if LCA can actually produce reliable data for supporting policy-making in the building sector. However, no prior reviews looking into this issue in the building sector exist. This study includes an extensive literature review of LCA studies on the pre-use phase of buildings. The purpose of this study is to analyze the variation between the results of different studies and find out whether the differences can be explained by the contextual differences or if it is actually the methodological choices that cause the extremely high variation. We present 116 cases from 47 scientific articles and reports that used process LCA, input-output (IO) LCA or hybrid LCA to study the construction-phase GHG emissions of buildings. The results of the reviewed studies vary between 0.03 and 2.00 tons of GHG emissions per gross area. The lowest was assessed with process LCA and highest with IO LCA, and in general the lower end was found to be dominated by process LCA studies and the higher end by IO LCA studies, hybrid LCAs being placed in between. In general, it is the methodological issues and subjective choices of the LCA practitioner that cause the vast majority of the huge variance in the results. It thus seems that currently the published building LCAs do not offer solid background information for policy-making without deep understanding of the premises of a certain study and good methodological knowledge.</description><subject>building</subject><subject>Buildings</subject><subject>Construction</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>embodied</subject><subject>Environmental impact</subject><subject>GHG emissions</subject><subject>Greenhouse gases</subject><subject>Life cycle analysis</subject><subject>Life cycle assessment</subject><subject>Life cycles</subject><subject>literature review</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Scientific papers</subject><issn>1748-9326</issn><issn>1748-9326</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>O3W</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UT1v3DAMNYoGaJpmzyigQ5Y6EWXpLE1FcMgXcECXyyzQEn3VwWe5kj3cv68vLtIMRScSj4-PfGRRXAG_Aa71LdRSl6YSq1tEJYk-FOdv0Md3-afic857zpVUtT4vtmvsWRdaKt3RdcQwZ8r5QP3IhhT95Igl6gI2c22IXXBHtpuCn6GeMgs9G38Sa6bQ-dDvWCY3xvT9S3HWYpfp8k-8KF4e7rfrp3Lz4_F5fbcpnTSrsYRaKN0qzusGlAZpPK5qRZ4a05CU3reSey6dQC0aaGWtKu7QGd0gIAioLornRddH3NshhQOmo40Y7CsQ085iGsPsyxLqyoFHJ0wjaVUhCaEVyarWUhujZ62vi9Zs-9dEebT7OKV-Xt8KJQ2A5LKeWXxhuRRzTtS-TQVuT3-wp0Pb06Ht8oe55dvSEuLwV_M_9Ot_0Cl1FoQFy6HiHOzg2-o3lL-Waw</recordid><startdate>20170101</startdate><enddate>20170101</enddate><creator>Säynäjoki, Antti</creator><creator>Heinonen, Jukka</creator><creator>Junnila, Seppo</creator><creator>Horvath, Arpad</creator><general>IOP Publishing</general><scope>O3W</scope><scope>TSCCA</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170101</creationdate><title>Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector?</title><author>Säynäjoki, Antti ; Heinonen, Jukka ; Junnila, Seppo ; Horvath, Arpad</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c496t-17258f5007b158149da675edeb9be44ddf40d04c2a82b1f47530cac98ba1a1213</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>building</topic><topic>Buildings</topic><topic>Construction</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>embodied</topic><topic>Environmental impact</topic><topic>GHG emissions</topic><topic>Greenhouse gases</topic><topic>Life cycle analysis</topic><topic>Life cycle assessment</topic><topic>Life cycles</topic><topic>literature review</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Scientific papers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Säynäjoki, Antti</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heinonen, Jukka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Junnila, Seppo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horvath, Arpad</creatorcontrib><collection>Institute of Physics Open Access Journal Titles</collection><collection>IOPscience (Open Access)</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Environmental research letters</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Säynäjoki, Antti</au><au>Heinonen, Jukka</au><au>Junnila, Seppo</au><au>Horvath, Arpad</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector?</atitle><jtitle>Environmental research letters</jtitle><stitle>ERL</stitle><addtitle>Environ. Res. Lett</addtitle><date>2017-01-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>13001</spage><pages>13001-</pages><issn>1748-9326</issn><eissn>1748-9326</eissn><coden>ERLNAL</coden><abstract>Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an established methodology that can provide decision-makers with comprehensive data on the environmental impacts of products and processes during the entire life cycle. However, the literature on building LCAs consists of highly varying results between the studies, even when the assessed buildings are very similar. This makes it doubtful if LCA can actually produce reliable data for supporting policy-making in the building sector. However, no prior reviews looking into this issue in the building sector exist. This study includes an extensive literature review of LCA studies on the pre-use phase of buildings. The purpose of this study is to analyze the variation between the results of different studies and find out whether the differences can be explained by the contextual differences or if it is actually the methodological choices that cause the extremely high variation. We present 116 cases from 47 scientific articles and reports that used process LCA, input-output (IO) LCA or hybrid LCA to study the construction-phase GHG emissions of buildings. The results of the reviewed studies vary between 0.03 and 2.00 tons of GHG emissions per gross area. The lowest was assessed with process LCA and highest with IO LCA, and in general the lower end was found to be dominated by process LCA studies and the higher end by IO LCA studies, hybrid LCAs being placed in between. In general, it is the methodological issues and subjective choices of the LCA practitioner that cause the vast majority of the huge variance in the results. It thus seems that currently the published building LCAs do not offer solid background information for policy-making without deep understanding of the premises of a certain study and good methodological knowledge.</abstract><cop>Bristol</cop><pub>IOP Publishing</pub><doi>10.1088/1748-9326/aa54ee</doi><tpages>16</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1748-9326
ispartof Environmental research letters, 2017-01, Vol.12 (1), p.13001
issn 1748-9326
1748-9326
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1088_1748_9326_aa54ee
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Institute of Physics Open Access Journal Titles; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; IOPscience extra; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects building
Buildings
Construction
Decision making
embodied
Environmental impact
GHG emissions
Greenhouse gases
Life cycle analysis
Life cycle assessment
Life cycles
literature review
Literature reviews
Scientific papers
title Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T00%3A32%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Can%20life-cycle%20assessment%20produce%20reliable%20policy%20guidelines%20in%20the%20building%20sector?&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20research%20letters&rft.au=S%C3%A4yn%C3%A4joki,%20Antti&rft.date=2017-01-01&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=13001&rft.pages=13001-&rft.issn=1748-9326&rft.eissn=1748-9326&rft.coden=ERLNAL&rft_id=info:doi/10.1088/1748-9326/aa54ee&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2549114047%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2549114047&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_ea83c1dac29b4e63ae2285e437848998&rfr_iscdi=true