Functional unit influence on building life cycle assessment

被引:22
|
作者
de Simone Souza, Hugo Henrique [1 ]
de Abreu Evangelista, Patricia Pereira [2 ]
Medeiros, Diego Lima [3 ]
Alberti, Jaume [4 ]
Fullana-i-Palmer, Pere [4 ]
Boncz, Marc Arpad [1 ]
Kiperstok, Asher [3 ]
Goncalves, Jardel Pereira [2 ]
机构
[1] Fed Univ Mato Grosso Sul UFMS, Environm Technol Postgrad Program PGTA, Fac Engn Architecture & Urbanism & Geog FAENG, Av Costa & Silva S-N, BR-79070900 Campo Grande, MS, Brazil
[2] Fed Univ Bahia UFBA, Energy & Environm Postgrad Program PGEnAm, Rua Aristides Novis 2, BR-40210630 Salvador, BA, Brazil
[3] Fed Univ Bahia UFBA, Escola Politecn, Ind Engn Postgrad Program PEI, Rua Aristides Novis 2,6 Andar, BR-40210630 Salvador, BA, Brazil
[4] Pompeu Fabra Univ, UNESCO Chair Life Cycle & Climate Change ESCI UPF, Passeig Pujades 1, Barcelona 08003, Spain
关键词
Environmental performance; Life cycle assessment; Carbon footprint; Construction sector; Residence; Functional unit; Uncertainty; ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE; RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS; CONSTRUCTION SECTOR; LCA; IMPACT; CARBON; BENCHMARKS; CHALLENGES;
D O I
10.1007/s11367-020-01854-1
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Purpose The building sector is one of the most relevant sectors in terms of environmental impact. Different functional units (FUs) can be used in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies for a variety of purposes. This paper aimed to present different FUs used in the LCA of buildings and evaluate the influence of FU choice and setting in comparative studies. Methods As an example, we compared the "cradle to grave" environmental performance of four typical Brazilian residential buildings with different construction typologies, i.e., multi-dwelling and single dwelling, each with high and basic standards. We chose three types of FU for comparison: a dwelling with defined lifetime and occupancy parameters, an area of 1 m(2) of dwelling over a year period, and the accommodation of an occupant person of the dwelling over a day. Results and discussion The FU choice was found to bias the results considerably. As expected, the largest global warming indicator (GWi) values per dwelling unit and occupant were identified for the high standard dwellings. However, when measured per square meter, lower standard dwellings presented the largest GWi values. This was caused by the greater concentration of people per square meter in smaller area dwellings, resulting in larger water and energy consumption per square meter. The sensitivity analysis of FU variables such as lifetime and occupancy showed the GWi contribution of the infrastructure more relevant compared with the operation in high and basic standard dwellings. The definition of lifetime and occupancy parameters is key to avoid bias and to reduce uncertainty of the results when performing a comparison of dwelling environmental performances. Conclusions This paper highlights the need for adequate choice and setting of FU to support intended decision-making in LCA studies of the building sector. The use of at least two FUs presented a broader picture of building performance, helping to guide effective environmental optimization efforts from different approaches and levels of analysis. Information regarding space, time, and service dimensions should be either included in the FU setting or provided in the building LCA study to allow adjustment of the results for subsequent comparison.
引用
收藏
页码:435 / 454
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Functional unit influence on building life cycle assessment
    Hugo Henrique de Simone Souza
    Patrícia Pereira de Abreu Evangelista
    Diego Lima Medeiros
    Jaume Albertí
    Pere Fullana-i-Palmer
    Marc Árpád Boncz
    Asher Kiperstok
    Jardel Pereira Gonçalves
    The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2021, 26 : 435 - 454
  • [2] Influence of functional unit on the life cycle assessment of traction batteries
    Julien Matheys
    Wout Van Autenboer
    Jean-Marc Timmermans
    Joeri Van Mierlo
    Peter Van den Bossche
    Gaston Maggetto
    The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2007, 12 : 191 - 196
  • [3] Influence of functional unit on the life cycle assessment of traction batteries
    Matheys, Julien
    Van Autenboer, Wout
    Timmermans, Jean-Marc
    Van Mierlo, Joeri
    Van den Bossche, Peter
    Maggetto, Gaston
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2007, 12 (03) : 191 - 196
  • [4] Life cycle assessment of a Danish office building designed for disassembly
    Eberhardt, Leonora Charlotte Malabi
    Birgisdottir, Harpa
    Birkved, Morten
    BUILDING RESEARCH AND INFORMATION, 2019, 47 (06) : 666 - 680
  • [5] Impact of the selection of functional unit on the life cycle assessment of green concrete
    Panesar, Daman K.
    Seto, Karina E.
    Churchill, Cameron J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2017, 22 (12) : 1969 - 1986
  • [6] Life cycle assessment in the building design process - A systematic literature review
    Roberts, Matthew
    Allen, Stephen
    Coley, David
    BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT, 2020, 185
  • [7] Building rehabilitation life cycle assessment methodology-state of the art
    Thibodeau, Charles
    Bataille, Alain
    Sie, Marion
    RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2019, 103 : 408 - 422
  • [8] Fiberglass as a Novel Building Material: A Life Cycle Assessment of a Pilot House
    Bjanesoy, Stavroula
    Heinonen, Jukka
    Ogmundarson, Olafur
    Arnadottir, Arora
    Marteinsson, Bjoern
    ARCHITECTURE-SWITZERLAND, 2022, 2 (04): : 690 - 710
  • [9] Life cycle assessment: a multi-scenario case study of a low-energy industrial building in Thailand
    Tulevech, Steven M.
    Hage, Danny J.
    Jorgensen, Spence K.
    Guensler, Carter L.
    Himmler, Robert
    Gheewala, Shabbir H.
    ENERGY AND BUILDINGS, 2018, 168 : 191 - 200
  • [10] The effect of functional unit and co-product handling methods on life cycle assessment of an algal biorefinery
    Sills, Deborah L.
    Van Doren, Leda Gerber
    Beal, Colin
    Raynor, Elizabeth
    ALGAL RESEARCH-BIOMASS BIOFUELS AND BIOPRODUCTS, 2020, 46