Developing a New Data-Driven LCA Tool at the Urban Scale: The Case of the Embodied Environmental Profile of the Building Sector
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Previous Work on the Topic
1.2. Focus and Aims of the Research
- To extend the tool implemented by Famiglietti et al. (2022) [15], including the embodied emissions of the construction materials;
- Evaluating potential GWP benchmarks (i.e., targets, reference, and limits) for the city of Milan with potential extension for the entire Lombardy region, never investigated before. Analyzing a much larger sample of buildings than so far reported by European member states the Netherlands, France, Finland, Denmark, and Sweden.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. System Boundaries and Functional Unit
- Load-bearing structural frames:
- ○
- Basements (i.e., foundations, basement walls, and underground slabs);
- ○
- Vertical structures (i.e., beams, columns, reinforced concrete baffles, and structural masonry walls).
- Non-load-bearing elements:
- ○
- Basement and internal slabs (floor tiles excluded);
- ○
- Internal partitions (partitions of building units);
- ○
- Ceiling slabs;
- ○
- Façades, opaque and transparent envelopes.
- Finishes:
- ○
- External finishes (i.e., plaster);
- ○
- Internal finishes (i.e., gypsum plasterboard with framework).
2.2. Computational Structure
- h is a column vector with the impact category results (category indicators);
- C is the characterization matrix with the characterization factor;
- B is the intervention matrix which represents the environmental interventions of the unit processes (exchanges with nature—called the intervention matrix);
- A is the technology matrix, which represents the flows within the economic systems;
- f is the demand vector, representing the set of economic flows corresponding to the reference flow.
2.3. Description of the Engine
2.3.1. Input Model
2.3.2. Computational Model
- Xj are the objects;
- K is the number of clusters defined;
- Pi are the object Xj grouped in partitions (from 1 to K);
- Ci are the centroids.
- Reinforced concrete (RC) amounts for foundations and vertical structures (i.e., beams, columns, and baffles) were obtained by collecting data from 33 buildings constructed in Milan covering a total gross area (GA) of 443,682 m2, with an elevation per floor equal to 3 m. The equations range for buildings with stories from 1 to 14, with a number of underground floors from 1 to 2, considered in the Equation (2). The coefficient of determinations (R2) of the two relationship formulas are equal to 0.56 and 0.53 for foundations and vertical structures, respectively.
- The average percentages for reinforcing steel bars are 7% and 8% on mass, respectively. The intended uses of the buildings are residential, commercial (not open to the public), and retail, in some cases, on the ground floor; thus, with the same accidental load per legislation (equal to 2 kN/m2 in compliance with the current legislation).
- Figure 5 shows Equations (3) and (4). The authors highlight that the equations presented need future improvements to increase the tool’s precision. This will be possible by increasing the sample of data in the coming years.
- Masonry structures were modeled according to the Decree no. 29 “Norme tecniche per le costruzioni in zone sismiche” (Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici, 1996). The decree provides the percentage of structural area compared to the total area per story (Table 1). The elevation per floor was assumed equal to 3.5 m.
- is the thickness of the thermal insulation for the element (i);
- is the density of the thermal insulation in kg/m3;
- λ is the conductivity of the thermal insulation in W/(m × K);
- is the thermal resistance of the element (i) provided as input information in (m2 × K)/W;
- is the thermal resistance of element (i) listed in Table A1 in (m2 × K)/W.
2.3.3. Output Model
2.4. Building Stock for Milan
- 55% (115,675) from 1946 to 1975, 25% (52,255) from 1930 to 1945, 6% (12,812) from 2010 onward, and 14% the others for E1 asset class;
- 46% (7799) from 1946 to 1975, 29% (4863) from 1930 to 1945, 9% (1567) from 1976 to 1990, and 16% the others for E2 asset class;
- 50% (6838) from 1946 to 1975, 35% (4822) from 1930 to 1945, 5% (645) from 1976 to 1990, and 10% the others for E5 asset class.
- Windows (i) from 3.69 ± 1.15 to 1.21 ± 1.20 W/(m2 × K) for residential; (ii) from 4.01 ± 1.18 to 1.12 ± 0.22 W/(m2 × K) for commercial; and (iii) from 4.74 ± 1.23 to 1.19 ± 0.13 W/(m2 × K) for retail;
- Opaque envelopes (i) from 1.42 ± 0.43 to 0.22 ± 0.05 W/(m2 × K) for residential; (ii) from 1.65 ± 0.60 to 0.32 ± 0.13 W/(m2 × K) for commercial; and (iii) from 1.64 ± 0.67 to 0.36 ± 0.25 W/(m2 × K) for retail;
- Basement slabs (i) from 1.32 ± 0.42 to 0.29 ± 0.14 W/(m2 × K) for residential; (ii) from 1.48 ± 0.58 to 0.26 ± 0.17 W/(m2 × K) for commercial; and (iii) from 1.55 ± 0.55 to 0.25 ± 0.08 W/(m2 × K) for retail;
- Surfaces ratio (i) from 9 ± 5% to 14 ± 7% for residential; (ii) from 12 ± 8% to 32 ± 21% for commercial; and (iii) from 16 ± 12% to 33 ± 24% for retail.
- By comparing the above data, it is possible to verify, in part, the construction material technologies used by the engine (mainly according to the TABULA database) and described in Table A1. As stated, thermal transmittances listed in Table A1 were defined according to the databases used until 1975—the last year in which the libraries did not report insulation materials for the external envelope in the stratigraphy for which comparison is possible. From 1976, values in the table are presented without the contribution of thermal insulation. The outcomes obtained are presented in Table 6, where the asset class values are calculated by adding the standard deviation to the average value.
3. Results
- The vertical structure has a higher environmental score for all the impact categories analyzed than the foundations. It is strictly linked with the number of underground floors considered in the model. The engine developed considers buildings with not more than two underground floors. Potentially increasing the number of underground stories for the same number of aboveground floors, the conclusion could change;
- The internal slabs have a higher environmental score for all impact categories assessed, followed by ceilings and basement slabs. This is due to the larger surface area of the internal floors compared to other floors (buildings with an average height of 6.9 stories);
- Transparent envelopes have a higher environmental score for all impact categories analyzed, except for “ozone depletion”, due to the emissions released during the thermal insulation production process. Also, in this case, the conclusion is linked with the ratio of the transparent surface enveloped and the total surface enveloped. The building units analyzed have a ratio from 10% to 36% (see Figure 6, Figure A1 and Figure A2).
- Building typologies and construction materials:
- ○
- Asdrubali et al. (2013) [60] analyzed a single-family house (three stories), a multi-dwelling residential building (four stories), and a commercial building (five stories) without underground floors and in reinforced concrete;
- ○
- Causone et al. (2021) [70] analyzed a building with eight stories without an underground floor. Structures in reinforced concrete and wooden load-bearing frame;
- ○
- Famiglietti et al. (2023) [71] analyzed 14 buildings with 5 stories on average, without underground floors. Structures in reinforced concrete with blast furnace slag (40%) and recycled steel bars (95%);
- ○
- Rasmussen et al. (2019) [4] assessed 3 single-family houses and 25 multifamily buildings provided by Casa Clima agency (the number of stories is not provided). The structures are in wooden load-bearing frames without an underground floor.
- Elements and Modules:
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- To extend the tool implemented by Famiglietti et al. (2022) [15], including the embodied emissions of the construction materials;
- Evaluating potential GWP benchmarks (i.e., targets, reference, and limits) for the city of Milan with potential extension for the entire Lombardy region, never investigated before, by analyzing a much larger sample of buildings than so far reported by European member states the Netherlands, France, Finland, Denmark, and Sweden.
- Entire building stock (old and new building units), 15 kg CO2 eq/(m2 of net area × year);
- Nearly zero energy buildings (new building units), 21 kg CO2 eq/(m2 of net area × year);
- The outcomes achieved are higher if compared with what was presented by Trigaux et al. (2022) [37] and EU member states with the limit values for new constructions, from 1 to 17 and from 12 to 26 (operational energy included) kg CO2 eq/m2 of net area × year, respectively;
- Increasing the rate of recycled steel in reinforced concrete from 55% to 95% and using eco-cement (CEM II/B—Portland composite cement: clinker and blast furnace slag) leads to a reduction of 2 kg CO2 eq/(m2 of net area × year), corresponding to 290.5 kt CO2 eq, scaling the benefit to the entire area of new construction.
- Developing a large database for construction materials by computerizing the reports under the “ex-legge 10” containing the necessary information;
- Validating the model on a larger number of case studies;
- Developing maps of the city using geographical information systems (GIS) to set planning strategies;
- Assessing impacts concerning land use related to city sprawl [78];
- Associating cost and socioeconomic indicators with the environmental profile to identify priority areas for intervention and obtaining a lifecycle Sustainability assessment (LCSA).
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Year of Build | Construction Element | Description | Thermal Transmittance (W/(m2 × K)) |
---|---|---|---|
Before 1930 | External wall | Stone masonry | 2.58 |
Internal slabs in unheated rooms | Vaults in solid bricks | 1.64 | |
Internal slabs | Beams–wooden slabs | - | |
Ceiling slabs | Beams–wooden slabs | 1.22 | |
Load-bearing structural frames | Stone masonry | - | |
1930–1945 | External wall | Solid bricks | 1.48 |
Internal slabs in unheated rooms | Steel beams and vaults in solid bricks | 1.56 | |
Internal slabs | Steel beams and hollow bricks | - | |
Ceiling slabs | Steel beams and hollow bricks | 1.99 | |
Load-bearing structural frames | Solid bricks masonry | - | |
1946–1975 | External wall | Hollow bricks (25 cm) with cavity (5 cm) | 1.11 |
Internal slabs in unheated rooms | Reinforced brick–concrete slabs, traditional screed | 1.52 | |
Internal slabs | Reinforced brick–concrete slabs, traditional screed | - | |
Ceiling slabs | Reinforced brick–concrete slabs, traditional screed | 1.61 | |
Load-bearing structural frames | Reinforced concrete frames | - | |
1976–1990 | External wall | Hollow bricks (30 cm) with cavity (10 cm) | 0.70 |
Internal slabs in unheated rooms | Reinforced brick–concrete slabs, traditional screed | 1.52 | |
Internal slabs | Reinforced brick–concrete slabs, traditional screed | - | |
Ceiling slabs | Reinforced brick–concrete slabs, traditional screed | 1.61 | |
Load-bearing structural frames | Reinforced concrete frames | - | |
1991–2005 | External wall | Hollow bricks (40 cm) | 1.11 |
Internal slabs in unheated rooms | Reinforced brick–concrete slabs, lightweight screed | 1.54 | |
Internal slabs | Reinforced brick–concrete slabs, lightweight screed | - | |
Ceiling slabs | Reinforced brick–concrete slabs, lightweight screed | 1.63 | |
Load-bearing structural frames | Reinforced concrete frames | - | |
2006–2009 | External wall | Hollow bricks (30 cm) | 0.96 |
Internal slabs in unheated rooms | Reinforced brick–concrete slabs, lightweight screed | 1.54 | |
Internal slabs in unheated rooms | Full slab in reinforced concrete | 1.67 | |
Internal slabs | Reinforced brick–concrete slabs, lightweight screed | - | |
Ceiling slabs | Reinforced brick–concrete slabs, lightweight screed | 1.63 | |
Load-bearing structural frames | Reinforced concrete frames | - | |
2010 onward | External wall | Hollow bricks (30 cm) | 0.96 |
Internal slabs to unheated rooms | Reinforced brick–concrete slabs, lightweight screed | 1.54 | |
Internal slabs to unheated rooms | Full slab in reinforced concrete | 1.67 | |
Internal slabs | Reinforced brick–concrete slabs, lightweight screed, and gypsum plasterboard | - | |
Ceiling slabs | Reinforced brick–concrete slabs, lightweight screed, and gypsum plasterboard | 0.91 | |
Load-bearing structural frames | Reinforced concrete frames | - |
Appendix B
Material | EoL Scenario | Values (%) | Recycling and WTE Efficiency | Substitution Ratio | Avoided Burdens |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reinforced concrete | Recycling | 61.2% | 70% for steel | 1:0.25 concrete 1:1 steel | Gravel extraction for road filling. Primary production from pig iron. |
Incineration | 0.0% | ||||
Landfill | 38.8% | ||||
Steel | Recycling | 97.0% | 81.45% | 1:1 | Primary production from pig iron. |
Incineration | 0.0% | ||||
Landfill | 3.0% | ||||
Wood and massive wood | Recycling | 0.0% | 20.70% for electricity 27.20% for heat | - | Electricity from the national grid and heat production from a natural gas boiler. |
Incineration | 49.0% | ||||
Landfill | 51.0% | ||||
Light and solid bricks | Recycling | 60.0% | 100% | 1:0.11 | Gravel extraction for road filling. |
Incineration | 0.0% | ||||
Landfill | 40.0% | ||||
Stones | Recycling | 60.0% | 100% | 1:1 | Gravel extraction for road filling. |
Incineration | 0.0% | ||||
Landfill | 40.0% | ||||
Polystyrene | Recycling | 0.0% | 20.70% for electricity 27.20% for heat | - | Electricity from the national grid and heat production from a natural gas boiler. |
Incineration | 100.0% | ||||
Landfill | 0.0% | ||||
Gypsum plasterboard | Recycling | 15.0% | - | 1:1 | Primary gypsum production. |
Incineration | 0.0% | ||||
Landfill | 85.0% | ||||
Bitumen | Recycling | 0.0% | 20.70% for electricity 27.20% for heat | - | Electricity from the national grid and heat production from a natural gas boiler. |
Incineration | 50.0% | ||||
Landfill | 50.0% | ||||
Vapor barrier in PVC | Recycling | 0.0% | 20.70% for electricity 27.20% for heat | - | Electricity from the national grid and heat production from a natural gas boiler. |
Incineration | 100.0% | ||||
Landfill | 0.0% | ||||
Window frames in PVC | Recycling | 5.4% | 55.71% for recycling 20.70% for electricity 27.20% for heat | 1:1 | Primary production of PVC granulate. Electricity from the national grid and heat production from a natural gas boiler. |
Incineration | 15.0% | ||||
Landfill | 74.6% | ||||
Window frames in wood | Recycling | 0.0% | 20.70% for electricity 27.20% for heat | - | Electricity from the national grid and heat production from a natural gas boiler. |
Incineration | 49.0% | ||||
Landfill | 51.0% |
Appendix C
Appendix D
References
- Ristimäki, M.; Säynäjoki, A.; Heinonen, J.; Junnila, S. Combining Life Cycle Costing and Life Cycle Assessment for an Analysis of a New Residential District Energy System Design. Energy 2013, 63, 168–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laine, J.; Ottelin, J.; Heinonen, J.; Junnila, S. Consequential Implications of Municipal Energy System on City Carbon Footprints. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mirabella, N.; Allacker, K. The Assessment of Urban Environmental Impacts through the City Environmental Footprint: Methodological Framework and First Approach to the Built Environment. Procedia CIRP 2018, 69, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasmussen, F.N.; Ganassali, S.; Zimmermann, R.K.; Lavagna, M.; Campioli, A.; Birgisdóttir, H. LCA Benchmarks for Residential Buildings in Northern Italy and Denmark–Learnings from Comparing Two Different Contexts. Build. Res. Inf. 2019, 47, 833–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cellura, M.; Guarino, F.; Longo, S.; Mistretta, M. Capitolo 11-Life Cycle Energy Nei Net ZEB: Energia Incorporata e Consumo Di Energia in Fase d’uso. In Life Cycle Assessment Applicata All’edificio; Metodologia e casi studio sul sistema fabbricato impianto; AiCARR: Milano, Italy, 2017; pp. 167–179. [Google Scholar]
- Lavagna, M.; Baldassarri, C.; Campioli, A.; Giorgi, S.; Dalla Valle, A.; Castellani, V.; Sala, S. Benchmarks for Environmental Impact of Housing in Europe: Definition of Archetypes and LCA of the Residential Building Stock. Build. Environ. 2018, 145, 260–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Parliament Directive 2010/31/EU; 2010; Volume L153/13, pp. 13–35. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32010L0031 (accessed on 15 June 2023).
- European Parliament 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/EC.; European Union, 2012; pp. 1–56. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32012L0027 (accessed on 15 June 2023).
- European Commission European Green Deal: Commission Proposes to Boost Renovation and Decarbonisation of Buildings. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_6683 (accessed on 13 May 2023).
- European Parliament Energy Performance of Buildings (Recast)-Amendments Adopted by the European Parliament on 14 March 2023 on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Energy Performance of Buildings (Recast); European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2023.
- Albertí, J.; Brodhag, C.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P. First Steps in Life Cycle Assessments of Cities with a Sustainability Perspective: A Proposal for Goal, Function, Functional Unit, and Reference Flow. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 646, 1516–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 14040:2006; ISO Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
- ISO 14044:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
- European Commission. Taxonomy: Final Report of the Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Famiglietti, J.; Toosi, H.A.; Dénarié, A.; Motta, M. Developing a New Data-Driven LCA Tool at the Urban Scale: The Case of the Energy Performance of the Building Sector. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 256, 115389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CEN EN 15978; Sustainability of Construction Works. Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings. European Standard: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
- Institut Wohnen und Umwelt GmbH Tabula and Periscope. Available online: www.episcope.eu (accessed on 28 May 2022).
- Regione Lombardia Geoportale. Available online: https://www.geoportale.regione.lombardia.it/ (accessed on 15 March 2023).
- Aria, S.P. A Opendata CENED+2.0. Available online: http://www.cened.it/opendata_cenedplus2 (accessed on 5 September 2021).
- Fazio, S.; Castellani, V.; Sala, S.; Schau, E.M.; Secchi, M.; Zampori, L.; Diaconu, E. Supporting Information to the Characterisation Factors of Recommended EF Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018; ISBN 9789279767425. [Google Scholar]
- Frischknecht, R.; Heijungs, R.; Hofstetter, P. Einstein’s Lessons for Energy Accounting in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 1998, 3, 266–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Frischknecht, R.; Editors, N.J.; Althaus, H.-J.; Bauer, C.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Hischier, R.; Hellweg, S.; Köllner, T.; Loerincik, Y.; et al. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. Am. Midl. Nat. 2007, 150, 1–151. [Google Scholar]
- VDI. VDI-Richtlinie 4600: Kumulierter Energieaufwand (Cumulative Energy Demand). Begriffe, Definitionen, Berechnungs Methoden; Deutsch and Englisch, Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, VDI-Gesellschaft Energietechnik Richtlinienausschuss Kumulierter Energieaufwand, D.; VDI: Düsseldorf, Germany, 2012; Available online: https://www.vdi.de/richtlinien/details/vdi-4600-cumulative-energy-demand-kea-terms-definitions-methods-of-calculation (accessed on 10 May 2023).
- Sonderegger, T.; Stoikou, N. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods in the Ecoinvent Database v3.9 and v3.9.1; Zurich: Hong Kong, China, 2023; Volume 1.1. [Google Scholar]
- Wernet, G.; Bauer, C.; Steubing, B.; Reinhard, J.; Moreno-Ruiz, E.; Weidema, B. The Ecoinvent Database Version 3 (Part I): Overview and Methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 2016, 21, 1218–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNEP Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Assessment Databases; 2011. Available online: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2011%20-%20Global%20Guidance%20Principles.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2023).
- Scholten, N.; van Ewik, H. Environmental Performance Regulations in the Netherlands. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference Civil Engineering’13 Proceedings, Jelgava, Latvia; Latvia University of Agriculture Faculty of Rural Engineering: Jelgava, Latvia, 2013; Volume 4, pp. 36–40. [Google Scholar]
- Lützkendorf, T. Assessing the Environmental Performance of Buildings: Trends, Lessons and Tensions. Build. Res. Inf. 2017, 46, 594–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pilenås, L.H.; Einarsson, K.; Bacinska, J.; Elfving, S.; Engström, C.; Hjortsberg, M.; Löfgren, C.; Olsson, E.; Stranne, K.-J. Regulation on Climate Declarations for Buildings Proposal for a Roadmap and Limit Values; Boverket: Karlskrona, Sweden, 2020; ISBN 9789175637303. [Google Scholar]
- Kuittinen, M.; Häkkinen, T. Reduced Carbon Footprints of Buildings: New Finnish Standards and Assessments. Build. Cities 2020, 1, 182–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lasvaux, S.; Habert, G.; Peuportier, B.; Chevalier, J. Comparison of Generic and Product-Specific Life Cycle Assessment Databases: Application to Construction Materials Used in Building LCA Studies. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 2015, 20, 1473–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasmussen, F.N.; Zimmermann, R.K.; Kanafani, K.; Andersen, C.; Birgisdóttir, H. The Choice of Reference Study Period in Building LCA-Case-Based Analysis and Arguments. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 588, 032029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gervasio, H.; Dimova, S. Environmental Benchmarks for Buildings. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Frischknecht, R.; Balouktsi, M.; Lützkendorf, T.; Aumann, A.; Birgisdottir, H.; Ruse, E.G.; Hollberg, A.; Kuittinen, M.; Lavagna, M.; Lupišek, A.; et al. Environmental Benchmarks for Buildings: Needs, Challenges and Solutions—71st LCA Forum, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich, 18 June 2019. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 2019, 24, 2272–2280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moschetti, R.; Mazzarella, L.; Nord, N. An Overall Methodology to Define Reference Values for Building Sustainability Parameters. Energy Build. 2015, 88, 413–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agenzia CasaClima CasaClima Database. Available online: https://www.agenziacasaclima.it/it/home-1.html (accessed on 15 May 2023).
- Trigaux, D.; Allacker, K.; Debacker, W. Environmental Benchmarks for Buildings: A Critical Literature Review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 2020, 26, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AIA. AIA Guide to Building Life Cycle Assessment in Practice; AIA: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Hollberg, A.; Ruth, J. LCA in Architectural Design—A Parametric Approach. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 2016, 21, 943–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cavalliere, C.; Habert, G.; Dell’Osso, G.R.; Hollberg, A. Continuous BIM-Based Assessment of Embodied Environmental Impacts throughout the Design Process. J. Clean Prod. 2019, 211, 941–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrando, M.; Causone, F.; Hong, T.; Chen, Y. Urban Building Energy Modeling (UBEM) Tools: A State-of-the-Art Review of Bottom-up Physics-Based Approaches. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 62, 102408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fonseca, J.A.; Nguyen, T.A.; Schlueter, A.; Marechal, F. City Energy Analyst (CEA): Integrated Framework for Analysis and Optimization of Building Energy Systems in Neighborhoods and City Districts. Energy Build. 2016, 113, 202–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reinhart, C.F.; Dogan, T.; Jakubiec, J.A.; Rakha, T.; Sang, A. UMI-An Urban Simulation Environment for Building Energy Use, Daylighting and Walkability. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association, Chambéry, France, 26–28 August 2013; pp. 476–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nouvel, R.; Brassel, K.-H.; Bruse, M.; Duminil, E.; Coors, V.; Eicker, U.; Robinson, D. SimStadt, a New Workflow-Driven Urban Energy Simulation Platform for CityGML City Models. In Proceedings of the International Conference CISBAT 2015 Future Buildings and Districts Sustainability from Nano to Urban Scale, Lausanne, Switzerland, 9–11 September 2015; pp. 889–894. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, T.; Chen, Y.; Lee, S.H.; Piette, M.P.; Chen, Y.; Piette, M.P. CityBES: A Web-Based Platform to Support City-Scale Building Energy Efficiency Environment. Urban Integr. Syst. 2019, 14, 107–111. [Google Scholar]
- Robinson, D.; Haldi, F.; Kämpf, J.; Leroux, P.; Perez, D.; Rasheed, A.; Wilke, U. Citysim: Comprehensive Micro-Simulation of Resource Flows for Sustainable Urban Planning. IBPSA 2009-Int. Build. Perform. Simul. Assoc. 2009, 2009, 1083–1090. [Google Scholar]
- Efficacity UrbanPrint. Available online: https://efficacity.com/en/low-carbon-districts/our-software-solutions/urbanprint/ (accessed on 10 April 2023).
- Vauchez, M.; Famiglietti, J.; Autelitano, K.; Colombert, M.; Scoccia, R.; Motta, M. Life Cycle Assessment of District Heating Infrastructures: A Comparison of Pipe Typologies in France. Energies 2023, 16, 3912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Python Software Foundation Python 3.8 2019. Available online: https://www.python.org/ (accessed on 10 January 2023).
- PRé Sustainability SimaPro 9.3.0.2 2022. Available online: https://pre-sustainability.com/ (accessed on 10 April 2023).
- Heijungs, R.; Suh, S. The Computational Structure of Life Cycle Assessment; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Mutel, C. Brightway: An Open Source Framework for Life Cycle Assessment. J. Open Source Softw. 2017, 2, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacQueen, J. Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations. In Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability; University of California: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1967; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Steinhaus, H. Sur La Division Des Corps Matérielsen Parties. Bull. L’Académie Pol. des Sci. 1957, 4, 801–804. [Google Scholar]
- Redo sgr Coefficients for Construction Areas. 2019. Available online: https://redosgr.it/ (accessed on 15 June 2019).
- Carnieletto, L.; Ferrando, M.; Teso, L.; Sun, K.; Zhang, W.; Causone, F.; Romagnoni, P.; Zarrella, A.; Hong, T. Italian Prototype Building Models for Urban Scale Building Performance Simulation. Build. Environ. 2021, 192, 107590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johra, H. Thermal Properties of Building Materials-Review and Database; Department of the Built Environment, Aalborg University: Aalborg, Denmark, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Grazieschi, G.; Asdrubali, F.; Thomas, G. Embodied Energy and Carbon of Building Insulating Materials: A Critical Review. Clean. Environ. Syst. 2021, 2, 100032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asdrubali, F.; Roncone, M.; Grazieschi, G. Embodied Energy and Embodied Gwp of Windows: A Critical Review. Energies 2021, 14, 3788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asdrubali, F.; Baldassarri, C.; Fthenakis, V. Life Cycle Analysis in the Construction Sector: Guiding the Optimization of Conventional Italian Buildings. Energy Build. 2013, 64, 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiler, V.; Harter, H.; Eicker, U. Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings and City Quarters Comparing Demolition and Reconstruction with Refurbishment. Energy Build. 2017, 134, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zabalza Bribián, I.; Valero Capilla, A.; Aranda Usón, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Building Materials: Comparative Analysis of Energy and Environmental Impacts and Evaluation of the Eco-Efficiency Improvement Potential. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 1133–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldassarri, C.; Allacker, K.; Reale, F.; Castellani, V.; Sala, S. Consumer Footprint. Basket of Products Indicator on Food; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Rigamonti, L.; Grosso, M.; Sunseri, M.C. Influence of Assumptions about Selection and Recycling Efficiencies on the LCA of Integrated Waste Management Systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 2009, 14, 411–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghose, A.; Pizzol, M.; McLaren, S.J. Consequential LCA Modelling of Building Refurbishment in New Zealand- an Evaluation of Resource and Waste Management Scenarios. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AIRU Annuario 2018-Sviluppo Storico, Situazione Attuale e Schede Tecniche Delle Reti di Riscaldamento Urbano in Italia; 2018. Available online: https://www.airu.it/tag/annuario/ (accessed on 15 April 2023).
- CEN EN 15804: 2012 +A2:2019; Sustainability of Construction Works—Environmental Product Declarations—Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products. European Standard: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
- Cresme Ricerche Spa Nuove Costruzioni a Milano. 2020. Available online: https://www.cresme.it/ (accessed on 15 January 2023).
- Repubblica Italiana Decreto Legislativo 19 Agosto 2005, n. 192; Italy, 2005. Available online: https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2005;192!vig= (accessed on 10 April 2023).
- Causone, F.; Tatti, A.; Alongi, A. From Nearly Zero Energy to Carbon-neutral: Case Study of a Hospitality Building. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Famiglietti, J.; Aprile, M.; Spirito, G.; Motta, M. Net-Zero Climate Emissions Districts: Potentials and Constraints for Social Housing in Milan. Energies 2023, 16, 1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saltelli, A.; Annoni, P. How to Avoid a Perfunctory Sensitivity Analysis. Environ. Model. Softw. 2010, 25, 1508–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministère de la Transition Écologique Réglementation Environnementale 2020. J. Off. La République Française 2022. Available online: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/download/pdf?id=LBxKOX3Duk3h0j_ck_WBwvaib6Ml9xQU-us85fgyoEk= (accessed on 15 June 2023).
- C40 Reinventing Cities. Available online: https://www.c40reinventingcities.org/en/professionals/ (accessed on 10 April 2023).
- Miller, S.A.; Habert, G.; Myers, R.J.; Harvey, J.T. Achieving Net Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Cement Industry via Value Chain Mitigation Strategies. One Earth 2021, 4, 1398–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frontera, P.; Malara, A.; Mistretta, M. Recent Trends in Sustainability Assessment of “Green Concrete”; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 1402–1412. [Google Scholar]
- Mostafaei, H.; Badarloo, B.; Chamasemani, N.F.; Rostampour, M.A.; Lehner, P. Investigating the Effects of Concrete Mix Design on the Environmental Impacts of Reinforced Concrete Structures. Buildings 2023, 13, 1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allacker, K.; de Souza, D.M.; Sala, S. Land Use Impact Assessment in the Construction Sector: An Analysis of LCIA Models and Case Study Application. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 2014, 19, 1799–1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- | Story No. 1 | Story No. 2 | Story No. 3 | Story No. 4 | Story No. 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
One-story building | 5% | - | - | - | - |
Two-story building | 5% | 5% | - | - | - |
Three-story building | 6% | 5% | 5% | - | - |
Four-story building | 6% | 6% | 5% | 5% | - |
Five-story building | 7% | 7% | 6% | 6% | 5% |
ID | Materials | Layer | Glass Thickness (cm) | W/(m2 × K) | Range of W/(m2 × K) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Wood frame | Single glass | 0.4 | 4.50 | >4.0 |
2 | Wood frame | Single glass | 0.4 | 3.49 | 3.1 < U ≤ 4.0 |
3 | Wood frame | Single glass | 0.8 | 2.74 | 2.5 < U ≤ 3.1 |
4 | Wood frame | Two glasses (air) | 0.8 | 2.20 | 2.0 < U ≤ 2.5 |
5 | Wood frame | Two glasses (argon) | 0.8 | 1.80 | 1.6 < U ≤ 2.0 |
6 | Aluminum frame | Two glasses (argon) | 0.8 | 1.80 | 1.6 < U ≤ 2.0 |
7 | PVC frame | Two glasses (argon) | 0.8 | 1.80 | 1.6 < U ≤ 2.0 |
8 | Wood frame | Three glasses (argon) | 1.8 | 1.40 | U ≤ 1.6 |
9 | Aluminum frame | Three glasses (argon) | 1.8 | 1.40 | U ≤ 1.6 |
10 | PVC frame | Three glasses (argon) | 1.8 | 1.40 | U ≤ 1.6 |
Items | ESL (Years) |
---|---|
Load-bearing structural frames. | 60 |
Slabs—bricks, stones, concrete, reinforcing steel. | 60 |
Slabs—mortar, insulations (acoustic and thermal), gypsum plasterboard (with steel frame), and vapor and water barriers. | 30 |
Façades—bricks. | 60 |
Façades—cement plaster, thermal insulation, gypsum plasterboard (with steel frame), and windows. | 30 |
Asset Class | Before 1930 | 1930–1945 | 1946–1975 | 1976–1990 | 1991–2005 | 2006–2009 | 2010 Onward |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
E1 | 5296 | 52,255 | 115,675 | 9755 | 7473 | 7534 | 12,812 |
E2 | 743 | 4863 | 7799 | 1567 | 910 | 596 | 583 |
E3 | 0 | 36 | 52 | 11 | 21 | 10 | 8 |
E4 | 89 | 597 | 689 | 77 | 53 | 33 | 95 |
E5 | 562 | 4822 | 6838 | 645 | 375 | 231 | 307 |
E6 | 4 | 34 | 146 | 20 | 25 | 17 | 50 |
E7 | 6 | 56 | 141 | 30 | 20 | 8 | 28 |
E8 | 149 | 1538 | 3914 | 622 | 420 | 316 | 152 |
Energy Class | Before 1930 | 1930–1945 | 1946–1975 | 1976–1990 | 1991–2005 | 2006–2009 | 2010 Onward |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
E1—Residential | |||||||
G | 1948 | 16,770 | 36,990 | 2222 | 546 | 236 | 214 |
F | 1530 | 16,213 | 36,432 | 2694 | 1347 | 572 | 259 |
E | 991 | 10,839 | 22,964 | 2289 | 2079 | 897 | 345 |
D | 521 | 5700 | 12,615 | 1433 | 2151 | 1417 | 348 |
C | 119 | 1524 | 3752 | 553 | 949 | 1188 | 402 |
B | 55 | 463 | 1275 | 220 | 250 | 1017 | 664 |
A1 | 66 | 289 | 948 | 173 | 64 | 738 | 1975 |
A2 | 43 | 250 | 484 | 96 | 63 | 552 | 2888 |
A3 | 9 | 142 | 129 | 23 | 17 | 462 | 3126 |
A4 | 14 | 65 | 86 | 52 | 7 | 455 | 2591 |
nZEB | 6 | 84 | 198 | 5 | 0 | 171 | 3340 |
E2—Commercial | |||||||
G | 48 | 288 | 545 | 76 | 18 | 1 | 8 |
F | 86 | 507 | 1002 | 130 | 57 | 18 | 10 |
E | 150 | 1039 | 1744 | 321 | 137 | 25 | 21 |
D | 232 | 1712 | 2352 | 591 | 307 | 89 | 53 |
C | 132 | 918 | 1368 | 288 | 220 | 90 | 72 |
B | 63 | 226 | 415 | 105 | 127 | 174 | 68 |
A1 | 26 | 102 | 220 | 34 | 27 | 74 | 145 |
A2 | 2 | 51 | 125 | 16 | 7 | 52 | 132 |
A3 | 3 | 10 | 21 | 6 | 7 | 66 | 59 |
A4 | 1 | 10 | 7 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 15 |
nZEB | 0 | 33 | 39 | 1 | 0 | 27 | 103 |
E5—Retail | |||||||
G | 131 | 469 | 895 | 81 | 18 | 6 | 10 |
F | 78 | 646 | 908 | 87 | 49 | 7 | 16 |
E | 81 | 925 | 1561 | 108 | 63 | 16 | 21 |
D | 129 | 1607 | 2116 | 234 | 124 | 33 | 37 |
C | 65 | 785 | 967 | 100 | 66 | 48 | 36 |
B | 54 | 253 | 265 | 23 | 44 | 58 | 36 |
A1 | 20 | 107 | 83 | 10 | 9 | 39 | 66 |
A2 | 2 | 27 | 28 | 0 | 2 | 16 | 46 |
A3 | 1 | 2 | 12 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 24 |
A4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 15 |
nZEB | 0 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 31 |
Element | Table A1 Max | Residential | Commercial | Retail |
---|---|---|---|---|
Opaque envelopes | 2.58 | 1.85 | 2.20 | 2.31 |
Ceilings | 1.99 | 1.87 | 2.06 | 2.02 |
Basement slabs | 1.64 | 1.74 | 2.06 | 2.10 |
Potential Impacts | Units | A1-3 | A4 | A5 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | Module D |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ecotoxicity freshwater | CTUe | 5.37 × 101 | 1.89 × 100 | 1.07 × 100 | 1.19 × 100 | 5.89 × 100 | 1.35 × 100 | 2.62 × 100 | −2.31 × 100 |
Ozone depletion | kg CFC11 eq | 2.01 × 10−7 | 5.88 × 10−9 | 4.03 × 10−9 | 4.68 × 10−9 | 1.72 × 10−8 | 3.14 × 10−9 | 4.61 × 10−9 | −2.31 × 10−8 |
Acidification | mol H+ eq | 5.01 × 10−2 | 8.81 × 10−4 | 1.00 × 10−3 | 1.83 × 10−3 | 2.42 × 10−3 | 1.22 × 10−3 | 1.50 × 10−3 | −4.13 × 10−3 |
Eutrophication marine | kg N eq | 1.25 × 10−2 | 3.03 × 10−4 | 2.50 × 10−4 | 7.45 × 10−4 | 7.81 × 10−4 | 5.64 × 10−4 | 7.66 × 10−4 | −7.70 × 10−4 |
Eutrophication terrestrial | mol N eq | 1.33 × 10−1 | 3.20 × 10−3 | 2.67 × 10−3 | 8.13 × 10−3 | 8.22 × 10−3 | 6.03 × 10−3 | 6.49 × 10−3 | −8.25 × 10−3 |
Eutrophication freshwater | kg P eq | 3.35 × 10−3 | 1.89 × 10−5 | 6.70 × 10−5 | 2.01 × 10−5 | 6.70 × 10−5 | 9.00 × 10−6 | 2.74 × 10−5 | −2.52 × 10−4 |
Human toxicity, noncarcinogenic | CTUh | 1.18 × 10−7 | 2.72 × 10−9 | 2.36 × 10−9 | 8.63 × 10−10 | 7.84 × 10−9 | 1.46 × 10−9 | 1.91 × 10−9 | −8.63 × 10−9 |
Photochemical ozone formation | kg NMVOC eq | 4.96 × 10−2 | 1.32 × 10−3 | 9.92 × 10−4 | 2.50 × 10−3 | 3.50 × 10−3 | 1.87 × 10−3 | 2.10 × 10−3 | −3.55 × 10−3 |
Human toxicity, carcinogenic | CTUh | 3.26 × 10−8 | 1.23 × 10−10 | 6.51 × 10−10 | 7.53 × 10−11 | 4.07 × 10−10 | 1.17 × 10−10 | 1.06 × 10−10 | −2.07 × 10−9 |
Particulate matter formation | disease inc | 1.90 × 10−6 | 2.15 × 10−8 | 3.79 × 10−8 | 4.29 × 10−8 | 4.61 × 10−8 | 1.18 × 10−7 | 1.21 × 10−7 | −4.60 × 10−8 |
Ionizing radiation | kBq U-235 eq | 6.32 × 10−1 | 5.13 × 10−3 | 1.26 × 10−2 | 1.34 × 10−2 | 2.22 × 10−2 | 2.02 × 10−3 | 9.44 × 10−3 | −3.84 × 10−2 |
Material resources, metals/minerals | kg Sb eq | 5.86 × 10−5 | 8.87 × 10−7 | 1.17 × 10−6 | 2.31 × 10−7 | 3.55 × 10−6 | 1.54 × 10−7 | 4.40 × 10−7 | −9.96 × 10−7 |
Energy resources, nonrenewable | MJ | 1.20 × 102 | 3.86 × 100 | 2.40 × 100 | 3.65 × 100 | 1.12 × 101 | 2.29 × 100 | 3.52 × 100 | −1.21 × 101 |
Land use | Pt | 1.55 × 102 | 2.28 × 100 | 3.11 × 100 | 3.71 × 10−1 | 4.63 × 100 | 1.75 × 100 | 4.65 × 100 | −1.57 × 100 |
Water use | m3 depriv. | 3.58 × 100 | 1.89 × 10−2 | 7.17 × 10−2 | 5.60 × 10−2 | 6.39 × 10−2 | 2.69 × 10−2 | 5.05 × 10−2 | −2.40 × 10−1 |
Climate change | kg CO2 eq | 1.21 × 101 | 2.71 × 10−1 | 2.41 × 10−1 | 2.64 × 10−1 | 7.93 × 10−1 | 7.77 × 10−1 | 6.93 × 10−1 | −9.93 × 10−1 |
Climate change—fossil | kg CO2 eq | 1.27 × 101 | 2.70 × 10−1 | 2.55 × 10−1 | 2.55 × 10−1 | 7.92 × 10−1 | 2.62 × 10−1 | 3.56 × 10−1 | −9.75 × 10−1 |
Climate change—biogenic | kg CO2 eq | 1.24 × 10−1 | 2.32 × 10−4 | 2.48 × 10−3 | 8.61 × 10−3 | 6.53 × 10−4 | 3.81 × 10−2 | 2.99 × 10−2 | −1.72 × 10−2 |
Climate change—LU and LUC | kg CO2 eq | 4.84 × 10−2 | 1.31 × 10−4 | 9.67 × 10−4 | 3.30 × 10−5 | 4.64 × 10−4 | 2.83 × 10−5 | 1.29 × 10−4 | −1.04 × 10−3 |
Cumulative energy demand—nonrenewable energy resources | MJ | 1.20 × 102 | 3.86 × 100 | 2.40 × 100 | 3.65 × 100 | 1.12 × 101 | 2.29 × 100 | 3.52 × 100 | −1.21 × 101 |
Potential Impacts | Units | Basements | Vertical Structure | Basement Slabs | Internal Slabs | Ceiling Slabs | Opaque Envelopes | Transparent Envelopes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ecotoxicity freshwater | CTUe | 1.00 × 101 | 1.47 × 101 | 2.82 × 100 | 1.38 × 101 | 3.75 × 100 | 8.01 × 100 | 1.47 × 101 |
Ozone depletion | kg CFC11 eq | 3.88 × 10−8 | 5.57 × 10−8 | 7.58 × 10−9 | 4.58 × 10−8 | 1.09 × 10−8 | 2.28 × 10−8 | 6.00 × 10−8 |
Acidification | mol H+ eq | 9.98 × 10−3 | 1.49 × 10−2 | 2.14 × 10−3 | 1.20 × 10−2 | 3.77 × 10−3 | 5.22 × 10−3 | 1.10 × 10−2 |
Eutrophication marine | kg N eq | 2.71 × 10−3 | 4.45 × 10−3 | 5.92 × 10−4 | 3.44 × 10−3 | 9.32 × 10−4 | 1.64 × 10−3 | 2.16 × 10−3 |
Eutrophication terrestrial | mol N eq | 2.91 × 10−2 | 4.79 × 10−2 | 6.18 × 10−3 | 3.55 × 10−2 | 9.79 × 10−3 | 1.75 × 10−2 | 2.24 × 10−2 |
Eutrophication freshwater | kg P eq | 7.84 × 10−4 | 9.12 × 10−4 | 1.33 × 10−4 | 8.10 × 10−4 | 2.14 × 10−4 | 1.61 × 10−4 | 5.52 × 10−4 |
Human toxicity, noncarcinogenic | CTUh | 2.49 × 10−8 | 3.14 × 10−8 | 4.86 × 10−9 | 2.82 × 10−8 | 8.04 × 10−9 | 1.02 × 10−8 | 2.79 × 10−8 |
Photochemical ozone formation | kg NMVOC eq | 1.16 × 10−2 | 1.80 × 10−2 | 2.30 × 10−3 | 1.33 × 10−2 | 3.52 × 10−3 | 6.36 × 10−3 | 6.89 × 10−3 |
Human toxicity, carcinogenic | CTUh | 9.18 × 10−9 | 1.02 × 10−8 | 1.21 × 10−9 | 7.71 × 10−9 | 1.77 × 10−9 | 1.77 × 10−9 | 2.22 × 10−9 |
Particulate matter formation | disease inc | 4.90 × 10−7 | 1.11 × 10−6 | 1.03 × 10−7 | 2.57 × 10−7 | 6.83 × 10−8 | 1.09 × 10−7 | 1.50 × 10−7 |
Ionizing radiation | kBq U-235 eq | 1.21 × 10−1 | 1.88 × 10−1 | 3.48 × 10−2 | 1.80 × 10−1 | 3.47 × 10−2 | 3.19 × 10−2 | 1.08 × 10−1 |
Material resources, metals/minerals | kg Sb eq | 9.82 × 10−6 | 1.27 × 10−5 | 2.48 × 10−6 | 1.38 × 10−5 | 3.89 × 10−6 | 5.45 × 10−6 | 1.70 × 10−5 |
Energy resources, nonrenewable | MJ | 2.52 × 101 | 3.84 × 101 | 6.22 × 100 | 3.17 × 101 | 8.96 × 100 | 1.66 × 101 | 2.00 × 101 |
Land use | Pt | 9.13 × 100 | 1.49 × 101 | 3.15 × 100 | 2.27 × 101 | 5.37 × 100 | 8.54 × 100 | 1.09 × 102 |
Water use | m3 depriv. | 8.25 × 10−1 | 1.05 × 100 | 1.58 × 10−1 | 7.61 × 10−1 | 1.72 × 10−1 | 1.79 × 10−1 | 7.31 × 10−1 |
Climate change | kg CO2 eq | 2.92 × 100 | 4.02 × 100 | 6.46 × 10−1 | 3.37 × 100 | 9.24 × 10−1 | 1.48 × 100 | 1.74 × 100 |
Climate change—fossil | kg CO2 eq | 2.88 × 100 | 3.98 × 100 | 6.27 × 10−1 | 3.32 × 100 | 9.17 × 10−1 | 1.53 × 100 | 1.70 × 100 |
Climate change—biogenic | kg CO2 eq | 4.62 × 10−2 | 4.13 × 10−2 | 1.80 × 10−2 | 5.36 × 10−2 | 5.75 × 10−3 | 1.83 × 10−3 | 3.78 × 10−2 |
Climate change—LU and LUC | kg CO2 eq | 1.40 × 10−3 | 2.05 × 10−3 | 2.89 × 10−4 | 1.79 × 10−3 | 5.24 × 10−4 | 1.13 × 10−3 | 4.33 × 10−2 |
Cumulative energy demand—nonrenewable energy resources | MJ | 2.52 × 101 | 3.84 × 101 | 6.22 × 100 | 3.17 × 101 | 8.96 × 100 | 1.66 × 101 | 2.00 × 101 |
Potential Impacts | Units | Mean | Median | SD | SEM | 25th Perc. | 75th Perc. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ecotoxicity freshwater | CTUe | 6.74 × 101 | 6.29 × 101 | 1.73 × 101 | 3.77 × 10−2 | 5.73 × 101 | 7.15 × 101 |
Ozone depletion | kg CFC11 eq | 2.41 × 10−7 | 2.11 × 10−7 | 9.15 × 10−8 | 1.99 × 10−10 | 1.89 × 10−7 | 2.38 × 10−7 |
Acidification | mol H+ eq | 5.87 × 10−2 | 5.57 × 10−2 | 1.06 × 10−2 | 2.31 × 10−5 | 5.25 × 10−2 | 6.17 × 10−2 |
Eutrophication marine | kg N eq | 1.58 × 10−2 | 1.52 × 10−2 | 2.70 × 10−3 | 5.88 × 10−6 | 1.42 × 10−2 | 1.65 × 10−2 |
Eutrophication terrestrial | mol N eq | 1.67 × 10−1 | 1.60 × 10−1 | 2.85 × 10−2 | 6.20 × 10−5 | 1.50 × 10−1 | 1.75 × 10−1 |
Eutrophication freshwater | kg P eq | 3.55 × 10−3 | 3.45 × 10−3 | 4.76 × 10−4 | 1.04 × 10−6 | 3.27 × 10−3 | 3.68 × 10−3 |
Human toxicity, noncarcinogenic | CTUh | 1.35 × 10−7 | 1.27 × 10−7 | 2.59 × 10−8 | 5.65 × 1011 | 1.20 × 10−7 | 1.41 × 10−7 |
Photochemical ozone formation | kg NMVOC eq | 6.17 × 10−2 | 5.92 × 10−2 | 9.06 × 10−3 | 1.97 × 10−5 | 5.64 × 10−2 | 6.41 × 10−2 |
Human toxicity, carcinogenic | CTUh | 3.41 × 10−8 | 3.44 × 10−8 | 5.44 × 10−9 | 1.18 × 1011 | 3.11 × 10−8 | 3.63 × 10−8 |
Particulate matter formation | disease inc | 2.19 × 10−6 | 1.04 × 10−6 | 6.72 × 10−6 | 1.46 × 10−8 | 9.87 × 10−7 | 1.19 × 10−6 |
Ionizing radiation | kBq U-235 eq | 6.87 × 10−1 | 5.96 × 10−1 | 3.69 × 10−1 | 8.04 × 10−4 | 5.51 × 10−1 | 7.30 × 10−1 |
Material resources, metals/minerals | kg Sb eq | 6.45 × 10−5 | 6.24 × 10−5 | 1.35 × 10−5 | 2.94 × 10−8 | 5.55 × 10−5 | 7.00 × 10−5 |
Energy resources, nonrenewable | MJ | 1.46 × 102 | 1.44 × 102 | 2.67 × 101 | 5.82 × 10−2 | 1.27 × 102 | 1.55 × 102 |
Land use | Pt | 1.66 × 102 | 1.59 × 102 | 6.04 × 101 | 1.31 × 10−1 | 1.29 × 102 | 1.88 × 102 |
Water use | m3 depriv. | 3.85 × 100 | 3.63 × 100 | 1.20 × 100 | 2.61 × 10−3 | 3.35 × 100 | 3.98 × 100 |
Climate change | kg CO2 eq | 1.51 × 101 | 1.44 × 101 | 2.19 × 100 | 4.77 × 10−3 | 1.38 × 101 | 1.57 × 101 |
Climate change—fossil | kg CO2 eq | 1.49 × 101 | 1.43 × 101 | 2.12 × 100 | 4.61 × 10−3 | 1.37 × 101 | 1.55 × 101 |
Climate change—biogenic | kg CO2 eq | 2.13 × 10−1 | 2.45 × 10−1 | 1.85 × 10−1 | 4.03 × 10−4 | 1.83 × 10−1 | 2.47 × 10−1 |
Climate change—LU and LUC | kg CO2 eq | 4.79 × 10−2 | 4.64 × 10−2 | 2.02 × 10−2 | 4.40 × 10−5 | 3.52 × 10−2 | 5.69 × 10−2 |
Cumulative energy demand—nonrenewable energy resources | MJ | 1.46 × 102 | 1.44 × 102 | 2.67 × 101 | 5.82 × 10−2 | 1.27 × 102 | 1.55 × 102 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Famiglietti, J.; Madioum, H.; Motta, M. Developing a New Data-Driven LCA Tool at the Urban Scale: The Case of the Embodied Environmental Profile of the Building Sector. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11518. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511518
Famiglietti J, Madioum H, Motta M. Developing a New Data-Driven LCA Tool at the Urban Scale: The Case of the Embodied Environmental Profile of the Building Sector. Sustainability. 2023; 15(15):11518. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511518
Chicago/Turabian StyleFamiglietti, Jacopo, Hicham Madioum, and Mario Motta. 2023. "Developing a New Data-Driven LCA Tool at the Urban Scale: The Case of the Embodied Environmental Profile of the Building Sector" Sustainability 15, no. 15: 11518. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511518