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
  • [21] A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings
    Chau, C. K.
    Leung, T. M.
    Ng, W. Y.
    [J]. APPLIED ENERGY, 2015, 143 : 395 - 413
  • [22] Dynamic life cycle assessment modelling of a NZEB building
    Asdrubali, F.
    Baggio, P.
    Prada, A.
    Grazieschi, G.
    Guattari, C.
    [J]. ENERGY, 2020, 191
  • [23] Dealing with uncertainties in comparative building life cycle assessment
    Pannier, Marie-Lise
    Schalbart, Patrick
    Peuportier, Bruno
    [J]. BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT, 2023, 242
  • [24] Comprehensive assessment of sensitivity analysis methods for the identification of influential factors in building life cycle assessment
    Pannier, Marie-Lise
    Schalbart, Patrick
    Peuportier, Bruno
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2018, 199 : 466 - 480
  • [25] Functional unit choice in space conditioning life cycle assessment: Review and recommendations
    DeMarco, Maggie
    Fortier, Marie-Odile P.
    [J]. ENERGY AND BUILDINGS, 2022, 255
  • [26] A comparative approach to evaluate the toxicity of building materials through life cycle assessment
    Rey-Alvarez, Belen
    Silvestre, Jose
    Garcia-Martinez, Antonio
    Sanchez-Montanes, Benito
    [J]. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2024, 912
  • [27] Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment of a Living Building
    Gardner, Haley M.
    Hasik, Vaclav
    Banawi, Abdulaziz
    Olinzock, Maureen
    Bilec, Melissa M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING, 2020, 26 (04)
  • [28] A systematic review of consequential life cycle assessment in whole building life cycle assessment
    Udisi, B.
    Gorgolewski, M.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS, 2025, 7 (02):
  • [29] Life Cycle Assessment of building systems of a social interest housing unit
    Di Domenico, Marianne
    da Silva, Thaisa Leal
    Ribeiro, Lauro Andre
    [J]. REVISTA DE GESTAO AMBIENTAL E SUSTENTABILIDADE-GEAS, 2021, 10 (01):
  • [30] Building life cycle assessment research: A review by bibliometric analysis
    Geng, Shengnan
    Wang, Yuan
    Zuo, Jian
    Zhou, Zhihua
    Du, Huibin
    Mao, Guozhu
    [J]. RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2017, 76 : 176 - 184