Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
Comparative whole building LCAs: How far are our expectations from the documented evidence?
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6413-5260
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0389-5685
Abstract Buildings are responsible for a considerable portion of the embodied and operational CO2 emitted by human activities. Some building attributes have taken on the mantle of “environmentally preferable”. Through a systematic literature review, this paper investigates if the literature on whole building Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) confirms some environmental assumptions that are perceived as always truthful, e.g. (i) “wood is better than concrete and steel”, (ii) ”renovation is preferable to demolishing and building anew”, and (iii)“operational loads are more intensive than embodied loads”. The search also allowed to trace if advanced methodological modelling in LCA brings new insights into the mentioned perceptions. The assessment of over 250 case studies pointed that LCAs applied to complex systems, such as a building, embed crucial issues to be modeled, and rules of thumb lose veracity. Furthermore, as LCA incorporates deepened mathematical models, outcomes become less predictable, and paradigms should be interpreted with care.
Highlights In complex systems - such as buildings – environmental paradigms lose veracity. As sophisticated models are incorporated in LCA, outcomes become less predictable. Practitioners should add mathematical depth to LCA studies to bring new insights. Transparency in methodological choices is consistently missing.
Comparative whole building LCAs: How far are our expectations from the documented evidence?
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6413-5260
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0389-5685
Abstract Buildings are responsible for a considerable portion of the embodied and operational CO2 emitted by human activities. Some building attributes have taken on the mantle of “environmentally preferable”. Through a systematic literature review, this paper investigates if the literature on whole building Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) confirms some environmental assumptions that are perceived as always truthful, e.g. (i) “wood is better than concrete and steel”, (ii) ”renovation is preferable to demolishing and building anew”, and (iii)“operational loads are more intensive than embodied loads”. The search also allowed to trace if advanced methodological modelling in LCA brings new insights into the mentioned perceptions. The assessment of over 250 case studies pointed that LCAs applied to complex systems, such as a building, embed crucial issues to be modeled, and rules of thumb lose veracity. Furthermore, as LCA incorporates deepened mathematical models, outcomes become less predictable, and paradigms should be interpreted with care.
Highlights In complex systems - such as buildings – environmental paradigms lose veracity. As sophisticated models are incorporated in LCA, outcomes become less predictable. Practitioners should add mathematical depth to LCA studies to bring new insights. Transparency in methodological choices is consistently missing.
Comparative whole building LCAs: How far are our expectations from the documented evidence?
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6413-5260
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0389-5685
Abstract Buildings are responsible for a considerable portion of the embodied and operational CO2 emitted by human activities. Some building attributes have taken on the mantle of “environmentally preferable”. Through a systematic literature review, this paper investigates if the literature on whole building Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) confirms some environmental assumptions that are perceived as always truthful, e.g. (i) “wood is better than concrete and steel”, (ii) ”renovation is preferable to demolishing and building anew”, and (iii)“operational loads are more intensive than embodied loads”. The search also allowed to trace if advanced methodological modelling in LCA brings new insights into the mentioned perceptions. The assessment of over 250 case studies pointed that LCAs applied to complex systems, such as a building, embed crucial issues to be modeled, and rules of thumb lose veracity. Furthermore, as LCA incorporates deepened mathematical models, outcomes become less predictable, and paradigms should be interpreted with care.
Highlights In complex systems - such as buildings – environmental paradigms lose veracity. As sophisticated models are incorporated in LCA, outcomes become less predictable. Practitioners should add mathematical depth to LCA studies to bring new insights. Transparency in methodological choices is consistently missing.
Comparative whole building LCAs: How far are our expectations from the documented evidence?
Saade, Marcella Ruschi Mendes (Autor:in) / Guest, Geoffrey (Autor:in) / Amor, Ben (Autor:in)
Building and Environment ; 167
01.10.2019
Aufsatz (Zeitschrift)
Elektronische Ressource
Englisch
LCAs, EPDs, AND INCREASED PRODUCT TRANSPARENCY
| British Library Online Contents | 2013
Feminist LCAs: Finding leverage points for wellbeing within planetary boundaries
| BASE | 2023
| DOAJ | 2021