Next Article in Journal
Active BIM Approach to Optimize Work Facilities and Tower Crane Locations on Construction Sites with Repetitive Operations
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of Progressive Collapse Resistance of Steel Structures with Moment Resisting Frames
Correction published on 9 May 2020, see Buildings 2020, 10(5), 90.
Open AccessArticle

A Life Cycle Assessment of Two Residential Buildings Using Two Different LCA Database-Software Combinations: Recognizing Uniformities and Inconsistencies

1
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Iceland, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland
2
Department of Built Environment, Aalto University, 00076 Aalto, Finland
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Tampere University of Technology, 33100 Tampere, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2019, 9(1), 20; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9010020
Received: 16 November 2018 / Revised: 5 January 2019 / Accepted: 5 January 2019 / Published: 14 January 2019
Traditionally, the emissions embodied in construction materials have not been considered important; however, they are becoming crucial due to the short time-frame in which the emissions should be reduced. Moreover, evaluating the environmental burden of construction materials has proven problematic and the reliability of the reported impact estimates is questionable. More reliable information from the construction sector is thus urgently needed to back and guide decision-making. Currently, the building sector environmental impact assessments predominantly employ commercial software with environmental impact databases and report results without knowledge about the impact of the software/database choice on the results. In this study, estimates for the embodied environmental impacts of residential construction from the two most widely used life cycle assessment (LCA) database-software combinations, ecoinvent with SimaPro software and GaBi, are compared to recognize the uniformities and inconsistencies. The impacts caused by two residential buildings of different types, a concrete-element multi-story residential building and a detached wooden house, both located in Finland, were assessed, including all building systems with a high level of detail. Based on the ReCiPe Midpoint method, fifteen impact categories were estimated and compared. The results confirm that the tool choice significantly affects the outcome. For the whole building, the difference is significant, around 15%, even in the most widely assessed category of Climate Change, and yields results that lean in different directions for the two cases. In the others, the estimates are entirely different, 40% or more in the majority of the categories and up to several thousand percentages of difference. The main conclusion is that extensive work is still urgently needed to improve the reliability of LCA tools in the building sector in order to provide reliable and trustworthy information for policy-making. View Full-Text
Keywords: life cycle assessment; buildings; construction; SimaPro; GaBi; comparison life cycle assessment; buildings; construction; SimaPro; GaBi; comparison
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Emami, N.; Heinonen, J.; Marteinsson, B.; Säynäjoki, A.; Junnonen, J.-M.; Laine, J.; Junnila, S. A Life Cycle Assessment of Two Residential Buildings Using Two Different LCA Database-Software Combinations: Recognizing Uniformities and Inconsistencies. Buildings 2019, 9, 20.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop