# Environmental Impacts of Construction in Building Industry—A Review of Knowledge Advances, Gaps and Future Directions

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Research Methodology

## 3. Bibliometric Analysis Results

## 4. Critical Review of Studies on Construction Stage Environmental Impacts

#### 4.1. Major LCA Studies at Construction Stage of a Building

_{2}emissions at the construction stage of an office building in their life-cycle-emission study using input/output (I/O) and process methods to determine the energy consumption and CO

_{2}emissions, respectively. CO

_{2}emissions in the office building were estimated with respect to five emission sources: temporary works, structure, finishing, equipment and general expenditure. The results indicated that the operation and the construction stages of the building are responsible for the highest emissions, with a respective contribution of 82% and 15%, while the demolition stage has a minimum impact on CO

_{2}emissions. Moreover, Suzuki et al. also conducted the same emission study on the construction phase of a residential building [44]. The results concluded that structural works are responsible for the most CO

_{2}emissions. Mao et al. compared GHG emissions of conventional and semi pre-fabrication construction methods in their emission study using a high-rise residential-building construction in China [10]. The study defined five emission sources for the construction process including the embodied emissions of building materials, transportation of building materials, construction waste, soil and prefabricated components, and operation of equipment. Data corresponding to all five emission sources were collected for both of the construction methods. A process-based quantitative model was developed to evaluate the emissions. The results indicated GHG emissions of 336 and 368 kg/m

^{2}for conventional and semi pre-fabrication construction, respectively. The findings further highlighted the dominance of material emissions at the construction stage with around 80% of the total emissions. The study concluded by stating that the use of prefabrication materials can reduce the total GHG emissions by 15%.

_{2}, NO

_{x}, SO

_{2}and PM

_{10}, and used an I/O-based hybrid model that was developed to evaluate emissions. The comparative results showed that CO

_{2}emissions govern the total emissions at the construction stage over other emission substances considered, with an overwhelming 93% contribution. However, the emission-comparison results at various life-cycle stages revealed different outcomes. The paper highlighted that CO

_{2}emissions are dominant in the operation stage compared to the construction, maintenance and disposal stages, while other air pollutants such as NO

_{x}, SO

_{2}and PM are significant at the construction stage for both types of buildings. Of the four considered impact categories, GWP remained the most important impact category, whereas acidification, eutrophication, and human toxicity were less important. Overall, it was found that reinforced-concrete houses have more emissions compared to timber houses, and the authors also concluded that a higher design life can reduce emissions by 14%.

#### 4.2. Models to Estimate Emissions at Building-Construction Stage

_{2}emissions. A typical I/O model to estimate CO

_{2}emissions from building materials is as follows:

_{2}conversion coefficient, E

_{in}is the energy-input vector, I is the unit matrix and A is the I/O table, which is the transaction matrix between industry sectors. W is the converted energy type, which can be determined from Equation (2) in Table 2. Most of the I/O models are either a derivation or a representation of Equation (1). Process-based mathematical models have been the most frequently used models to evaluate embodied emissions from building materials. Several studies used a similar type of process-based algebraic equation to quantify embodied energy and emissions from materials [7,12,46]. The equation estimated the total embodied GHG emissions from construction materials from the quantity of materials and the material-emission factors. According to the study, these material quantities can be obtained from daily delivery reports and bills of quantities (BOQs). However, the use of BOQ data often suffers from approximations. Moreover, care should be taken to avoid double calculation in the case of using actual material quantities from daily delivery reports. Several other studies modified the previous equation by incorporating a waste factor such as in Equation (4) in Table 2 [10,58,59]. This waste factor is a dimensionless factor and can be either developed or adopted from previous studies. Even though it is an approximation, this model overcomes the double calculation of emissions. Treloar et al. used a similar model to measure emissions from recycled materials in an attempt to highlight the reduction in emissions from construction materials [60]. Embodied emissions in the model were represented in terms of the material quantities, wastage rates and emission factors. The model excluded emissions and energy consumption during the material-installation stage. Shukla et al. used another type of process-based model to calculate the embodied energy of an adobe house [61]. They used the volume and density of the material to calculate the weight of the material. Crawford proposed a process-based hybrid model to estimate embodied emissions from construction materials [62]. In his equation, I/O models were used to calculate the emissions for the missing data paths of the material life cycle, and then these values were added to the known process-based result to obtain the total embodied emissions of a basic material (Equation (7) in Table 2). The known process-based emissions were then added to the I/O models to obtain a process-based hybrid model to evaluate the total embodied emissions from materials, as shown in Equation (9) in Table 2. This model is considered one of the best models to estimate the life-cycle emissions of a construction material.

_{x}, PM and SO

_{2}in addition to GHG emissions [64]. Numerous studies have employed various mathematical models to estimate both these GHG and non-GHG emissions from equipment usage. Millstein and Harley [65] used a model to quantify emissions (E

_{i}) from fuel combustion in their study on emissions from construction activities. The model incorporated the fuel consumed (S) in kilograms per day (kg/day) and was multiplied by an emission factor (Fi), which provided the grams of emissions per kg of fuel combusted (g/kg). One drawback of this model is that it used the actual fuel consumption in terms of kilograms, which is not readily available for most construction sites. Often at construction sites, the fuel-consumption quantities are recorded in liters (L); therefore, using a slight modification (Equation (11) in Table 2) by introducing fuel consumption in terms of liters per day (L/day) and the density of the fuel, a straightforward calculation of equipment emissions due to fuel combustion can be provided. Another study on estimating GHG emissions in building construction used a similar approach to estimate GHG emissions from the fuel combustion of construction equipment [7]. According to the study, GHG emissions from fuel combustion included CO

_{2}, CH

_{4}and N

_{2}O emission, and the GHG-emission factor should be calculated by the summation of all the emission factors according to the formula provided in the following equation. Mao et al., in a comparative study on estimating GHG emissions between prefabrication and conventional construction methods, employed a model to estimate GHG emissions from the resource consumption of construction equipment [10]. According to the model, the total GHG emissions can be calculated in terms of tons of CO

_{2}-eq by knowing the resource or energy utilized (R

_{r}) of the corresponding construction technique. The study further stated that construction equipment usually uses diesel, electricity and water as fuel resources. Sihabuddin and Ariaratnam used a different approach to calculate emissions from construction equipment in their emission study [66]. They argued that emissions from construction equipment are dependent on the machine characteristics rather than the combusted fuel. Consequently, they used a model that determined GHG and non-GHG emissions based on machine characteristics such as power, usage and deterioration. The model is useful to quantify non-GHG emissions from construction equipment.

Equation No. | Type | Model | Variable Definition and Method Explanation | Evaluation Basis | LCA Method | References |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

(1) | Material | ${\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{m}}={(\mathrm{I}-\mathrm{A})}^{-1}{\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{in}}$ | W is the CO_{2} conversion coefficient, E_{in} is the energy input vector, I is the unit matrix and A is the I/O table, which is the transaction matrix between industry sectors. | Embodied energy | I/O | [6,56,57] |

(2) | Material | $\mathrm{W}={\displaystyle \sum}{\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{ts}}\ast {\mathsf{\theta}}_{\mathrm{ts}}$ | E_{ts} is the energy type t consumed in the industry sector s and θ_{ts} is the conversion coefficient. | Carbon dioxide | I/O | [6] |

(3) | Material | $\mathrm{E}={\displaystyle \sum}{\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{i}}\ast {\mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ | E is the total emissions (kg) from material type i, Q_{i} is the quantity of material i (kg) and f_{i} is the emission factor for the material I in (kg of emissions/kg). | Impacts from materials | Process | [13,41] |

(4) | Material | $\mathrm{E}=\left({\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{i}}+\mathsf{\mu}\right)\ast {\mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ | E is the total emissions (kg) from material type i, Q_{i} is the quantity of material i (kg) and µ is the waste factor and f_{i} is the emission factor for the material i in (kg of emissions/kg). | Impacts from materials | Process | [3,16,59,67] |

(5) | Material | $\mathrm{EE}={\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum}_{\mathrm{e}=1}^{\mathrm{E}}}{\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum}_{\mathrm{m}=1}^{\mathrm{M}}}\left[{\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{em}}\times {\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{em}}\times {\mathrm{EE}}_{\mathrm{m}}\right]$ | EE is the embodied energy of the material, Q_{em} is the quantity of material m in the element e, W_{em} is the wastage rate and EE_{m} is the embodied energy of the material excluding installation effects. | Embodied energy | Process | [60] |

(6) | Material | $\mathrm{EE}={\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum}_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}}{\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{i}}\ast {\mathsf{\rho}}_{\mathrm{i}}\ast {\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ | EE is the embodied energy of the material, V_{i} is the volume of material used in m^{3}, ρ is the density of the material kg/m^{3} an d E_{i} is the embodied-emission factor for material i in kg of CO_{2}-eq/kg | Embodied energy | Process | [61] |

(7) | Material | ${\mathrm{EI}}_{\mathrm{M}}={\mathrm{PEI}}_{\mathrm{M}}+\left({\mathrm{TEI}}_{\mathrm{n}}-{\mathrm{TEI}}_{\mathrm{M}}\right)\ast {\mathsf{\xi}}_{\mathrm{M}}$ | PEI_{M} is the process-based hybrid emissions of the material, TEI_{n} is the emissions of the sector n, TEI_{M} is the emissions representing the basic material M and ἐ_{n} is the total price of the material i. | Energy intensity | Hybrid | [62,68] |

(8) | Material | ${\mathrm{CE}}_{\mathrm{mat}}={\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum}_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}}{\mathrm{m}}_{\mathrm{i}}\ast {\mathrm{EF}}_{\mathrm{mat},\mathrm{i}}$ | CE_{mat} is the carbon emissions from materials, m_{i} is the weight of the material i in kg, EF_{mat,i} is the emission factor for material in kg CO_{2}-eq/kg | Carbon emissions | Process | [69] |

(9) | Material | ${\mathrm{EE}}_{\mathrm{t}}={\mathrm{Q}}_{\mathrm{M}}\ast \mathrm{W}\ast {\mathrm{EI}}_{\mathrm{M}}+\left({\mathrm{TEI}}_{\mathrm{n}}-{\mathrm{TEI}}_{\mathrm{M}}\right)\ast {\mathsf{\xi}}_{\mathrm{M}}$ | EE_{t} is the total embodied emissions from process-based hybrid analysis; QM is the quantity of the total materials M and W is the wastage factor of the respective material. | Total environmental impacts | Hybrid | [62,68] |

(10) | Equipment | ${\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{i}}=\mathrm{S}\ast {\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ | E_{i} is the GHG emissions from equipment i and S is the fuel consumed in liters and F_{j} is the emission factor for the fuel j in kg/liter | GHG emissions | Process | [59,70,71] |

(11) | Equipment | ${\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{i}}={\mathrm{S}}^{\prime}\ast \mathsf{\rho}\ast {\mathrm{F}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ | ρ is the density of the material in kg/m^{3}, s’ is the volume of the fuel consumed in m^{3} and F_{i} is the emission factor in kgCO_{2}-eq/kg | GHG emissions | Process | [59] |

(12) | Equipment | $\mathrm{E}={\displaystyle \sum}\frac{\mathrm{F}\ast \mathrm{f}}{1000}$ | The amount of fuel j consumed by the construction equipment in liters; f is the greenhouse gas emission factor for fuel j consumed by construction equipment (in kg CO_{2}-eq/liter) | GHG emissions | Process | [67,72] |

(13) | Equipment | $\mathrm{E}={\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum}_{\mathrm{r}=1}^{\mathrm{r}}}{\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum}_{\mathrm{v}=1}^{\mathrm{v}}}\frac{{\mathrm{R}}_{\mathrm{r}}\ast {\mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{n}}^{\mathrm{v}}}{1000}$ | Emissions from equipment in kg, R_{r} is the power of the equipment in kW and f^{v}_{n} is the emission factor for r^{th} equipment in kg of CO_{2}/kW | GHG emissions | Process | [8,59,67] |

(14) | Equipment | ${\mathrm{Emissions}}_{\mathrm{i}}={\mathrm{EF}}_{\mathrm{i}}\ast \mathrm{HRS}\ast \mathrm{HP}\ast \mathrm{LF}\ast 0.01$ | Emissions_{i} is the total emissions of emission substance i in grams, HRS is the hours of use in hours, HP is the power of machine in hp, LF is the load factor is the ratio between operation and maximum rated outputs and 0.01 is the conversion of percent to fraction. | Non-GHG and GHG emissions | Process | [3,16,66,73] |

(15) | Equipment | $\mathrm{EE}={\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum}_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{3}}{\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum}_{\mathrm{j}=1}^{\mathrm{m}}}\left({\mathrm{T}}_{\mathrm{mac},\mathrm{i}}\times {\mathrm{EU}}_{\mathrm{mac},\mathrm{ij}}\right)\times {\mathrm{EF}}_{\mathrm{ej}}$ | T_{mac,i} is the working time of type i machinery, EU_{mac,ij} is the consumption of type j energy for type i machinery working unit time, and EF_{e,j} is the emission factor for type j energy | GHG emissions | Process | [69] |

(16) | Transport | ${\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{ii}}={\displaystyle \sum}\frac{{\mathrm{M}}_{\mathrm{j}}^{\mathrm{ii}}\ast \left({\mathrm{T}}_{\mathrm{j}}^{\mathrm{l}}\ast {\mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{j}}^{\mathrm{ii}}+{\mathrm{T}}_{\mathrm{j}}^{\mathrm{s}}\ast {\mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{s}}^{\mathrm{ii}}\right)}{1000}$ | E_{ii} is the total GHG emissions due to fuel combustion from transport vehicles, ${\mathrm{M}}_{\mathrm{j}}^{\mathrm{ii}}$ is the total quantity of material j, ${\mathrm{T}}_{\mathrm{j}}^{\mathrm{l}}$ and ${\mathrm{T}}_{\mathrm{j}}^{\mathrm{s}}$ are the total distances of transportation for building materials j by land and sea in km and ${\mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{j}}^{\mathrm{ii}},{\mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{s}}^{\mathrm{ii}}$ are the GHG emission factor for transportation by land sea in kg CO_{2}-e/(ton km), respectively. | GHG emissions | Process | [72] |

(17) | Transport | $\mathrm{E}={\displaystyle \sum}{\displaystyle \sum}\frac{{\mathrm{M}}_{\mathrm{j}}\ast {\mathrm{L}}_{\mathrm{j}}^{\mathrm{m}}\ast {\mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{k}}^{\mathrm{t}}}{1000}$ | E is the emissions from transport and M_{j} is the weight of the material j transported, L^{m}_{j} is the distance traveled in km and f^{t}_{k} is the emission factor in kg/ton-km | GHG emissions | Process | [72] |

(18) | Transport | ${\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{i}}=\left({\mathrm{Z}}_{\mathrm{i}}+{\mathrm{r}}_{\mathrm{i}}\ast \mathrm{M}\right){\displaystyle \sum}\mathrm{d}$ | “I” is the impact from i^{th} vehicle in kg, Z_{i} is the zero-level emissions of the i^{th} vehicle in kg/km, r_{i} is the emission factor of i^{th} vehicle in kg/ton-km, M is the total weight of the vehicle in tons and d is the distance traveled by the vehicle in km | GHG and non-GHG emissions | Process | [41] |

(19) | Transport | ${\mathrm{CE}}_{\mathrm{tran}}={\displaystyle \sum}\left({\mathrm{m}}_{\mathrm{i}}\times {\mathrm{s}}_{\mathrm{i}}\right)\times {\mathrm{EF}}_{\mathrm{tran},\mathrm{i}}$ | CE_{tran} is the carbon emissions from transportations in kg, m_{i} is the material weight in tons and s_{i} is the distance traveled in km. EF_{tran,i} is the emission factor for the transport vehicle in kg/tons-km | GHG emissions | Process | [69] |

(20) | Unit Process | ${\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{u}}={\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum}_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}}{\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum}_{\mathrm{j}=1}^{6}}{\mathrm{M}}_{\mathrm{i}}{\mathsf{\mu}}_{\mathrm{ij}}{\mathrm{GWP}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ | Eu is the GHG emissions in kg CO_{2}-eq, µ_{ij} is the emission factor for the j^{th} GHG emission pollutant and i^{th} emission substance, and M_{i} is the mass of the emission substance in kg | GHG emissions | Process | [74] |

## 5. Barriers and Knowledge Gaps

#### 5.1. Lack of Definition for a Generic System Boundary

#### 5.2. Difficulties in Data and Information Collection

#### 5.3. Complex-Modeling Issues and Lack of Decision-Making Aspects

#### 5.4. Complications in Classification and Analysis of Emissions

_{10}) and carbon monoxide (CO) can have adverse health impacts [81]. Therefore, accurate guidelines should be developed for selecting the most-important emission substances to improve the comprehensiveness of the emission study.

## 6. Conclusions, Future Research Focuses and Directions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Buyle, M.; Braet, J.; Audenaert, A. Life cycle assessment in the construction sector: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2013**, 26, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, X.; Shen, L.; Zhang, L. Life cycle assessment of the air emissions during building construction process: A case study in Hong Kong. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2013**, 17, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guggemos, A.A.; Horvath, A. Comparison of environmental effects of steel-and concrete-framed buildings. J. Infrastruct. Syst.
**2005**, 11, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chau, C.K.; Hui, W.K.; Ng, W.Y.; Powell, G. Assessment of CO
_{2}emissions reduction in high-rise concrete office buildings using different material use options. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.**2012**, 61, 22–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sartori, I.; Hestnes, A.G. Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article. Energy Build.
**2007**, 39, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Seo, S.; Hwang, Y. Estimation of CO
_{2}emissions in life cycle of residential buildings. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.**2001**, 127, 414–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yan, H.; Shen, Q.; Fan, L.C.H.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, L. Greenhouse gas emissions in building construction: A case study of One Peking in Hong Kong. Build. Environ.
**2010**, 45, 949–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Hong, J.; Shen, G.Q.; Feng, Y.; Lau, W.S.-t.; Mao, C. Greenhouse gas emissions during the construction phase of a building: A case study in China. J. Clean. Prod.
**2015**, 103, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Liu, G.; Chen, R.; Xu, P.; Fu, Y.; Mao, C.; Hong, J. Real-time carbon emission monitoring in prefabricated construction. Autom. Constr.
**2020**, 110, 102945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mao, C.; Shen, Q.; Shen, L.; Tang, L. Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: Two case studies of residential projects. Energy Build.
**2013**, 66, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S.; Thomas, C.M. Environmental Emissions of Construction Equipment Usage in Pile Foundation Construction Process—A Case Study. In Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate; Shen, L., Ye, K., Mao, C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 327–339. [Google Scholar]
- Chau, C.K.; Yik, F.W.H.; Hui, W.K.; Liu, H.C.; Yu, H.K. Environmental impacts of building materials and building services components for commercial buildings in Hong Kong. J. Clean. Prod.
**2007**, 15, 1840–1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S. Environmental emissions at foundation construction stage of buildings—Two case studies. Build. Environ.
**2016**, 95, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S. A comparative method of air emission impact assessment for building construction activities. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
**2018**, 68, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bribián, I.Z.; Uson, A.A.; Scarpellini, S. Life cycle assessment in buildings: State-of-the-art and simplified LCA methodology as a complement for building certification. Build. Environ.
**2009**, 44, 2510–2520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S.; Luo, W.; Li, C.Q. Estimation and comparison of environmental emissions and impacts at foundation and structure construction stages of a building—A case study. J. Clean. Prod.
**2017**, 151, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Oesterreich, T.D.; Teuteberg, F. Understanding the implications of digitisation and automation in the context of Industry 4.0: A triangulation approach and elements of a research agenda for the construction industry. Comput. Ind.
**2016**, 83, 121–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, J.W.; Huang, L.C. Detecting and Visualizing Emerging Trends and Transient Patterns in Fuel Cell Scientific Literature. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, Dalian, China, 19–21 September 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr.
**2017**, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Visualizing Bibliometric Networks in Measuring Scholarly Impact; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 285–320. [Google Scholar]
- Synnestvedt, M.B.; Chen, C.; Holmes, J.H. CiteSpace II: Visualization and Knowledge Discovery in Bibliographic Databases in AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings; American Medical Informatics Association: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2005; pp. 724–728. [Google Scholar]
- Kyoto Protocol UNFCCC Website. Available online: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php (accessed on 28 December 2021).
- Solís-Guzmán, J.; Marrero, M.; Montes-Delgado, M.V.; Ramírez-De-Arellano, A. A Spanish model for quantification and management of construction waste. Waste Manag.
**2009**, 29, 2542–2548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Martínez-Rocamora, A.; Solís-Guzmán, J.; Marrero, M. LCA databases focused on construction materials: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2016**, 58, 565–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Solís-Guzmán, J.; Marrero, M. Ramírez-de-Arellano, A. Methodology for determining the ecological footprint of the construction of residential buildings in Andalusia (Spain). Ecol. Indic.
**2013**, 25, 239–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - González-Vallejo, P.; Marrero, M.; Solís-Guzmán, J. The ecological footprint of dwelling construction in Spain. Ecol. Indic.
**2015**, 52, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Alba-Rodríguez, M.D.; Martínez-Rocamora, A.; González-Vallejo, P.; Ferreira-Sánchez, A.; Marrero, M. Building rehabilitation versus demolition and new construction: Economic and environmental assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
**2017**, 66, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tan, Y.; Luo, T.; Xue, X.; Shen, G.Q.; Zhang, G.; Hou, L. An empirical study of green retrofit technologies and policies for aged residential buildings in Hong Kong. J. Build. Eng.
**2021**, 39, 102271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, D.; Huang, G.; Zhang, G.; Wang, J. Driving factors of total carbon emissions from the construction industry in Jiangsu Province, China. J. Clean. Prod.
**2020**, 276, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tushar, Q.; Bhuiyan, M.; Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G. Optimizing the energy consumption in a residential building at different climate zones: Towards sustainable decision making. J. Clean. Prod.
**2019**, 233, 634–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S. Impediments affecting a comprehensive emission assessment at the construction stage of a building. Int. J. Constr. Manag.
**2019**, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S. Estimation of environmental emissions and impacts of building construction—A decision making tool for contractors. J. Build. Eng.
**2019**, 21, 173–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Illankoon, I.M.C.S.; Tam, V.W.; Le, K.N.; Shen, L. Key credit criteria among international green building rating tools. J. Clean. Prod.
**2017**, 164, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Senaratne, S.; Lambrousis, G.; Mirza, O.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Kang, W.-H. Recycled Concrete in Structural Applications for Sustainable Construction Practices in Australia. Procedia Eng.
**2017**, 180, 751–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tam, V.W.; Butera, A.; Le, K.N.; Li, W. Utilising CO
_{2}technologies for recycled aggregate concrete: A critical review. Constr. Build. Mater.**2020**, 250, 118903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, J.; Li, Z.; Tam, V.W. Identifying best design strategies for construction waste minimization. J. Clean. Prod.
**2015**, 92, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tam, V.W.Y.; Le, K.N.; Tran, C.N.N.; Illankoon, I.M.C.S. A review on international ecological legislation on energy consumption: Greenhouse gas emission management. Int. J. Constr. Manag.
**2021**, 21, 631–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xing, W.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Le, K.N.; Hao, J.L.; Wang, J. Life cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete on its environmental impacts: A critical review. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2022**, 317, 125950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ding, Z.; Zhu, M.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Yi, G.; Tran, C.N.N. A system dynamics-based environmental benefit assessment model of construction waste reduction management at the design and construction stages. J. Clean. Prod.
**2018**, 176, 676–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S. Toolkit to capture environmental emissions in construction phase of buildings in the Australian context. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM), Lincoln, UK, 7–9 September 2015; pp. 247–256. [Google Scholar]
- Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S.; Li, C.-Q.; Fang, J. Models and method for estimation and comparison of direct emissions in building construction in Australia and a case study. Energy Build.
**2016**, 126, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sandanayake, M.; Yang, W.; Chhibba, N.; Vrcelj, Z. Residential building defects investigation and mitigation—A comparative review in Victoria, Australia, for understanding the way forward. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag.
**2021**. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Suzuki, M.; Oka, T. Estimation of life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emission of office buildings in Japan. Energy Build.
**1998**, 28, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Suzuki, M.; Oka, T.; Okada, K. The estimation of energy consumption and CO 2 emission due to housing construction in Japan. Energy Build.
**1995**, 22, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gerilla, G.P.; Teknomo, K.; Hokao, K. An environmental assessment of wood and steel reinforced concrete housing construction. Build. Environ.
**2007**, 42, 2778–2784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cole, R.J. Energy and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of alternative structural systems. Build. Environ.
**1998**, 34, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abanda, F.H.; Tah, J.H.M.; Cheung, F.K.T. Mathematical modelling of embodied energy, greenhouse gases, waste, time–cost parameters of building projects: A review. Build. Environ.
**2013**, 59, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, X.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, Z. An LCA-based environmental impact assessment model for construction processes. Build. Environ.
**2010**, 45, 766–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ortiz, O.; Castells, F.; Sonnemann, G. Sustainability in the construction industry: A review of recent developments based on LCA. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2009**, 23, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hawdon, D.; Pearson, P. Input-output simulations of energy, environment, economy interactions in the UK. Energy Econ.
**1995**, 17, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Su, B.; Huang, H.C.; Ang, B.W.; Zhou, P. Input–output analysis of CO
_{2}emissions embodied in trade: The effects of sector aggregation. Energy Econ.**2010**, 32, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Acquaye, A.A.; Duffy, A.P. Input-output analysis of Irish construction sector greenhouse gas emissions. Build. Environ.
**2010**, 45, 784–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Chang, Y.; Ries, R.J.; Wang, Y. The embodied energy and environmental emissions of construction projects in China: An economic input–output LCA model. Energy Policy
**2010**, 38, 6597–6603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hammond, G.P.; Jones, C.I. Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Energy
**2008**, 161, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Huberman, N.; Pearlmutter, D. A life-cycle energy analysis of building materials in the Negev desert. Energy Build.
**2008**, 40, 837–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Treloar, G.J. Extracting embodied energy paths from input–output tables: Towards an input–output-based hybrid energy analysis method. Econ. Syst. Res.
**1997**, 9, 375–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Crawford, R.H.; Treloar, G.J. Proceedings of the Validation of the Use of Australian Input Output Data for Building Embodied Energy Simulation. In Proceedings of the Eighth International IBPSA Conference, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 11–14 August 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.; Zhu, Y. Analysis of Environmental Impacts in the Construction Phase of Concrete Frame Buildings; Department of Construction Management, Tsinghua University: Beijing, China, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Guggemos, A.A. Environmental impacts of on-site construction processes: Focus on structural frames. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkley, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Treloar, G.J.; Gupta, H.; Love, P.E.; Nguyen, B. An analysis of factors influencing waste minimisation and use of recycled materials for the construction of residential buildings. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J.
**2003**, 14, 134–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shukla, A.; Tiwari, G.; Sodha, M. Embodied energy analysis of adobe house. Renew. Energy
**2009**, 34, 755–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Crawford, R.H. Validation of a hybrid life-cycle inventory analysis method. J. Environ. Manag.
**2008**, 88, 496–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Frey, H.; Rasdorf, W.; Lewis, P. Comprehensive Field Study of Fuel Use and Emissions of Nonroad Diesel Construction Equipment. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board
**2010**, 2158, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - USEPA; Environmental Protection Agency; Air and Radiation Office USA; Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Crankcase Emission Factors for Non-Road Engine Modeling-Compression-Ignition. 2010. Available online: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100UXEN.txt (accessed on 21 November 2021).
- Millstein, D.E.; Harley, R.A. Revised estimates of construction activity and emissions: Effects on ozone and elemental carbon concentrations in southern California. Atmos. Environ.
**2009**, 43, 6328–6335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sihabuddin, S.S.; Ariaratnam, S.T. Methodology for estimating emissions in underground utility construction operations. J. Eng. Des. Technol.
**2009**, 7, 37–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ji, Y.; Li, K.; Liu, G.; Shrestha, A.; Jing, J. Comparing greenhouse gas emissions of precast in-situ and conventional construction methods. J. Clean. Prod.
**2017**, 173, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Crawford, R.H.; Czerniakowski, I.; Fuller, R.J. A comprehensive framework for assessing the life-cycle energy of building construction assemblies. Archit. Sci. Rev.
**2010**, 53, 288–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Zhang, X.; Wang, F. Assessment of embodied carbon emissions for building construction in China: Comparative case studies using alternative methods. Energy Build.
**2016**, 130, 330–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Peng, C. Calculation of a building’s life cycle carbon emissions based on Ecotect and building information modeling. J. Clean. Prod.
**2016**, 112, 453–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sim, J.; Sim, J.; Park, C. The air emission assessment of a South Korean apartment building’s life cycle, along with environmental impact. Build. Environ.
**2016**, 95, 104–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sandanayake, M.S. Models and Toolkit to Estimate and Analyse the Emissions and Environmental Impacts of Building Construction. Ph.D. Thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, 16 December 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, G.; Sandanayake, M.; Setunge, S.; Li, C.; Fang, J. Selection of emission factor standards for estimating emissions from diesel construction equipment in building construction in the Australian context. J. Environ. Manag.
**2017**, 187, 527–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Li, L.; Chen, K. Quantitative assessment of carbon dioxide emissions in construction projects: A case study in Shenzhen. J. Clean. Prod.
**2017**, 141, 394–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guggemos, A.A.; Horvath, A. Decision-support tool for assessing the environmental effects of constructing commercial buildings. J. Archit. Eng.
**2006**, 12, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Treloar, G.J.; Love, P.; Faniran, O.; Iyer-Raniga, U. A hybrid life cycle assessment method for construction. Constr. Manag. Econ.
**2000**, 18, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chi, H.-L.; Kang, S.-C.; Wang, X. Research trends and opportunities of augmented reality applications in architecture, engineering, and construction. Autom. Constr.
**2013**, 33, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rowlinson, S.; Rowlinson, S. Building information modelling, integrated project delivery and all that. Constr. Innov.
**2017**, 17, 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sandanayake, M.; Gunasekara, C.; Law, D.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S.; Wanijuru, D. Sustainable criterion selection framework for green building materials – An optimisation based study of fly-ash Geopolymer concrete. Sustain. Mater. Technol.
**2020**, 25, e00178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Eldridge, C. Lcaid™ Software: Measuring Environmental Performance of Buildings. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Brisbane, Australia, 17–20 March 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, W.; Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G. Direct and indirect carbon emissions in foundation construction—Two case studies of driven precast and cast-in-situ piles. J. Clean. Prod.
**2019**, 211, 1517–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hao, J.L.; Cheng, B.; Lu, W.; Xu, J.; Wang, J.; Bu, W.; Guo, Z.J. Carbon emission reduction in prefabrication construction during materialization stage: A BIM-based life-cycle assessment approach. Sci. Total Environ.
**2020**, 723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cheng, B.; Li, J.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Yang, M.; Chen, D. A BIM-LCA approach for estimating the greenhouse gas emissions of large-scale public buildings: A case study. Sustainability
**2020**, 12, 685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Sandanayake, M.; Li, C.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S. Environmental emissions in building construction–two case studies of conventional and pre-fabricated construction methods in Australia. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 7–11 August 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, G.; Sandanayake, M. BIM and optimisation techniques to improve sustainability in green certification submission of construction projects. In Proceedings of the 7th World Construction Symposium, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 29 June–1 July 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Alhumayani, H.; Gomaa, M.; Soebarto, V.; Jabi, W.J. Environmental assessment of large-scale 3D printing in construction: A comparative study between cob and concrete. J. Clean. Prod.
**2020**, 270, 122463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yao, Y.; Hu, M.; Di Maio, F.; Cucurachi, S.J. Life cycle assessment of 3D printing geo-polymer concrete: An ex-ante study. J. Ind. Ecol.
**2020**, 24, 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Han, Y.; Yang, Z.; Ding, T.; Xiao, J.J. Environmental and economic assessment on 3D printed buildings with recycled concrete. J. Clean. Prod.
**2021**, 278, 123884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 3.**Annual publications in the top five journals related to environmental impacts in construction.

Attribute | Result |
---|---|

Timespan | 1991–2021 |

Average years from publication | 5.84 |

Average citations per documents | 1.278 |

Average citations per year per doc | 0.1673 |

References | 3795 |

Author’s Keywords (DE) | 387 |

Authors | 2976 |

Author Appearances | 3563 |

Authors of single-authored documents | 130 |

Authors of multi-authored documents | 2846 |

Documents per Author | 0.365 |

Authors per Document | 2.74 |

Co-Authors per Documents | 3.28 |

Collaboration Index | 3 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the author. 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

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Sandanayake, M.S.
Environmental Impacts of Construction in Building Industry—A Review of Knowledge Advances, Gaps and Future Directions. *Knowledge* **2022**, *2*, 139-156.
https://doi.org/10.3390/knowledge2010008

**AMA Style**

Sandanayake MS.
Environmental Impacts of Construction in Building Industry—A Review of Knowledge Advances, Gaps and Future Directions. *Knowledge*. 2022; 2(1):139-156.
https://doi.org/10.3390/knowledge2010008

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Sandanayake, Malindu Sasanka.
2022. "Environmental Impacts of Construction in Building Industry—A Review of Knowledge Advances, Gaps and Future Directions" *Knowledge* 2, no. 1: 139-156.
https://doi.org/10.3390/knowledge2010008