Building and Environment 167 (2020) 106449

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Comparative whole building LCAs: How far are our expectations from the
documented evidence?
Marcella Ruschi Mendes Saade a, b, *, Geoffrey Guest c, Ben Amor a
a
Interdisciplinary Research Laboratory on Sustainable Engineering and Ecodesign, Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Universit�e de Sherbooke, 2500 Boul. de
l’Universit�e, Sherbrooke, Qu�ebec, J1K2R1, Canada
b
NSERC Industrial Research Chair for the development of flowable concrete with adapted rheology (FCAR) and its use in concrete infrastructure, Canada
c
Construction Research Centre, National Research Council of Canada (NRC), 1200 Montreal Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A0R6, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Buildings are responsible for a considerable portion of the embodied and operational CO2 emitted by human
Building activities. Some building attributes have taken on the mantle of “environmentally preferable”. Through a sys­
Life cycle assessment tematic literature review, this paper investigates if the literature on whole building Life Cycle Assessments (LCA)
Dynamic
confirms some environmental assumptions that are perceived as always truthful, e.g. (i) “wood is better than
Consequential
Biogenic
concrete and steel”, (ii) ”renovation is preferable to demolishing and building anew”, and (iii)“operational loads
Carbonation 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.

1. Introduction
Being intensive in terms of both resources consumed and emissions
generated, the building sector’s environmental loads are increasingly
investigated [1–3]. However, due to their long service life, great atten­
tion has been given to buildings’ use phase, mostly focusing on their
energy consumption. Measures for increasing energy efficiency in
buildings’ operational phase have shown a successful outcome, greatly
reducing the amount of electricity consumed [4]. These improvements
have increased the relevance of loads embodied in the building, either
before or after the building’s use [5].
Buildings were recently found to be responsible for 39% (28% due to
operations and 11% due to materials) of global energy related green­
house gas (GHG) emissions in 2017 [6]. By 2030, 82 billion square
meters—an area roughly equal to 60% of the world’s total building
stock—will be built in urban areas worldwide [7]. Therefore, decar­
bonisation of the built environment is a must to achieve the 1.5 � C target
of the Paris agreement, where both operational (OC) and embodied
carbon (EC) will need to be addressed. Recognizing this urgency, the
importance of quantifying the embodied and operational impacts from a
regulatory perspective has more than doubled in the past five years [8].
A recent global review of environmental sustainability certifications and
regulations identified 156 systems across 26 countries of which 105
include direct measures for embodied carbon [8].
In order to measure the interaction of the building stock with the
environment, and to identify the load balance between all stages of a
building’s service period, Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) are recom­
mended. LCAs are regulated by international standards ISO 14040 [9]
and ISO 14044 [10]. Considering all flows exchanged between the
analyzed product/system and the environment, LCAs provide an over­
view of the environmental performance of the studied object and help
support circularity between different product systems. It has been
widely applied to the construction sector, and increasingly used as a
decision making supporter throughout all levels of the built environ­
ment: material [11,12], systems [13,14], whole buildings [1,2] and
neighborhoods [15,16].
Due to a wide scope of assessment, LCA helps demystify fixed and
biased perceptions on environmental mechanisms. Paradigms such as
“recycled and local products are always best” present confusion between
ends (minimizing flows to and from nature) and means (recycling,

* Corresponding author. Interdisciplinary Research Laboratory on Sustainable Engineering and Ecodesign, Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Uni­
versit�e de Sherbooke. 2500 boul. de l’Universit�
e, Sherbrooke, Qu�ebec, J1K2R1, Canada.
E-mail address: marcellarms@hotmail.com (M.R.M. Saade).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106449
Received 28 June 2019; Received in revised form 5 September 2019; Accepted 1 October 2019
Available online 4 October 2019
0360-1323/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.R.M. Saade et al.
reusing, minimizing transport distance) [17]. Similar paradigms have
arisen regarding a building’s environmental performance. Some “rules
of thumb” are perceived as always right, such as “wood is better than
concrete and steel”, “renovation is always preferable to demolishing and
building anew”, and “operational loads are more intensive than
embodied loads”. By taking into consideration different aspects and
stages of a building’s life cycle, LCA puts those rules to test.
A great number of papers present outcomes of whole building LCAs
(wbLCA), many times discussing the paradigms previously mentioned.
This research aims to answer two main questions: (i) does literature
confirm the building-related rules of thumb? Moreover, the LCA method
has evolved in past years and increasingly incorporates approaches
allowing for more realistic outcomes, such as following a dynamic or
consequential modelling approach, or considering complex carbon cycle
modelling. (ii) Do these advanced approaches bring new insight
regarding the previous perceptions?
To answer these questions, we performed a systematic literature
review (SLR) on comparative wbLCAs. SLRs differ from typical narrative
reviews mainly due to the adoption of a ‘research protocol’ [18]. The
researcher is expected to develop a replicable literary search process,
documenting any decisions, procedures and conclusions. SLRs are usu­
ally accompanied by meta-analyses, which pool together results from
different studies, to provide a quantitative evaluation of published
research [19]. Our outcome not only answers the abovementioned
research questions but helps delineate an overview of how wbLCAs have
been structured.
2. Method
Our search procedure aimed to answer a wider inquiry that allowed
us to assess the questions posed in the previous section: “What are the
common outcomes of comparative whole building LCAs and how have
LCA practitioners performed them?”. Due to the inherent differences
between residential and non-residential buildings (e.g. operational en­
ergy use, owing to different heating and lighting requirements, equip­
ment, and peak consumption hours) and the breath and scope required
in reviewing both typologies, our search was limited to the latter
typology.
We searched for contributions in the Scopus database, due to its
coverage of a number of journals that publish peer-reviewed construc­
tion-related LCAs. Relevant reports/papers that were left out of our
search criteria were added via the “snowball approach” [20], by having
specialists in the field double-check the sample or by checking citations
in the sampled studies. All selected documents were in English, and no
time boundary was set. Our keyword string, searched across all fields in
Scopus, was: [("life cycle assessment" AND building AND compar*) AND
NOT residen*)]. All studies that matched our search criteria were
exported to a reference management software. Documents went through
three conservative filtering rounds: (i) a title analysis, (ii) an abstract
analysis and, finally, (iii) an in-depth full document analysis.
We first looked for typical comparative LCAs focused on the whole
building scale. Within the same sample, we separately identified papers
that adopted the following approaches (here referred to as “advanced”):
(i) consequential LCAs; (ii) dynamic LCAs, (iii) LCAs modelling
carbonation in concrete structures; (iv) LCAs modelling biogenic carbon
uptake in renewable materials; (v) LCAs considering service life pre­
diction effects on whole building performance; (vi) LCAs modelling
rebound effects and (vii) LCAs considering multi-criteria optimization –
either between different impacts or environmental and economic per­
formances. We additionally identified (viii) LCAs assessing the impact of
phase change materials in the building. Since the latter does not repre­
sent an advancement in calculation approaches but on the material
level, we present and treat it separately. It is not our intention to classify
the former approaches as the most advanced or as better than typical
LCAs, these are merely examples of novel modelling solutions that could
provide different outcomes worthy of discussion.
2
Building and Environment 167 (2020) 106449
Typical comparative LCAs that aimed solely at assessing a building
material’s performance were excluded from the sample. On the other
hand, if examples of advanced LCA methodological approaches focused
exclusively on one building system (structure, envelope or technical
equipment), these were still kept in the analysis to aid the discussion,
due to the low total number of contributions in those cases. Residential
building cases were also kept within the advanced methods paper
sample, for the same reasons. Fig. 1 graphically depicts the research
protocol.
3. Outcome
577 documents met our search criteria. After a title analysis assessing
the answer to the primary question, 303 documents were kept. An ab­
stract analysis led to the exclusion of 229 papers, and finally a full paper
analysis led to the exclusion of 37 papers. Our final sample was
composed of the remaining 37 papers, totaling 218 different case
studies. Three papers and one report were added through a snowball
approach. For the advanced issues, after following the same evaluation
stages and adding contributions via snowball, our sample was composed
of 4 papers calculating carbon uptake through carbonation, 2 papers
calculating biogenic carbon uptake, 4 papers adopting a consequential
approach, 5 papers adopting dynamic modelling, 10 papers adopting
multi-criteria decision making or optimization calculation approaches, 9
papers assessing the effect of service life prediction, 7 papers predicting
phase change materials’ environmental impacts, and finally, 2 papers
discussing the incorporation of rebound effects in LCA. The supple­
mentary material describes methodological characteristics and findings
of each assessed paper individually. After extraction of relevant infor­
mation from each study, a meta-analysis jointly evaluating the findings
was performed. The confrontation of the typical rules of thumb
mentioned in the first section with the evidence brought forward in our
sample is presented in the following subsections.
Fig. 2 depicts the temporal distribution of all papers assessed in our
review. As shown by Ref. [21], the number of papers only shows sig­
nificant growth after 2011. The sample size hinders a growth trend
comparison between advanced wbLCAs and typical wbLCAs but they
seem to be increasing with time in a similar fashion.
Our 223 case studies sample on typical wbLCA showed that 144
building cases where located in a temperate climate, 66 in a continental
climate, 9 in a tropical climate and 4 in an arid climate. This outcome
reveals a gap of studies in warmer countries, where electricity demand
types vary in relation to the bulk of the documented literature.
Within our typical LCA sample, 4 papers and 1 report compared
renovation or refurbishment versus building anew, 10 papers performed
a comparison between wood, steel and concrete frames (including
comparisons between only two of the latter options), 6 papers assessed
different refurbishment scenarios, and 15 papers assessed rivaling ma­
terials for different building systems (frame, envelope, insulation, etc.).
The remaining papers focused on more particular subjects, such as
assessing lean versus traditional building processes [22], different end of
life scenarios [23], and calculation methods validations [24]. In those
cases, the rules of thumb were not investigated. Nonetheless, these
studies were kept in our sample to strengthen the methodological dis­
cussion regarding typical LCA practice. Last, 12 papers showed the re­
sults of embodied versus operational loads contribution to whole
building life cycle loads.
LCA’s methodological framework allows practitioners to structure
the study with certain freedom. It is therefore not uncommon to find
studies providing diverging answers to similar research questions,
mostly due to differences in methodological choices. The most influ­
encing methodological parameters in wbLCAs were documented indi­
vidually for each case study in the supplementary file. The latter allows
for the identification of potential sources of variation between the re­
sults discussed in this review. The frequency of adoption of these pa­
rameters in our sample is briefly discussed here. Regarding the main
M.R.M. Saade et al.
Fig. 1. Review protocol flowchart.
Fig. 2. Temporal distribution of evaluated papers.
methodological choices, (i) functional unit definition, (ii) system
boundaries selection, (iii) impact distribution, (iv) building service life
and (v) data source were of greater interest within our investigation, due
to their known influence on the study’s outcome. Most case studies
(118) adopted a m2 of floor area (9 adopted gross floor area, 13 adopted
net floor area and 96 did not specify if net or gross floor area was
assessed) as functional unit. The lack of specification on the considered
area hinders interpretation. The difference between net and gross floor
area can be significant, especially in buildings with high thermal insu­
lation levels [25]. In those cases, the net floor area can be as low as 70%
of the gross area [25], which will influence the documented environ­
mental performance. The second most adopted unit was the whole
building (54 case studies). A combined unit of area and year of service
life (m2.year) was the third most adopted unit, present in 44 case
studies. Lastly, two papers omitted their chosen functional unit.
As for the life cycle scope considered, most case studies (121)
3
Building and Environment 167 (2020) 106449
referred to the whole life cycle of the building (cradle-to-site þ use þ end
of life). The whole life cycle excluding end of life was the second most
adopted boundary (24 case studies), followed by selecting the whole life
cycle excluding only the transport to the construction site and con­
struction itself. Table 1 summarizes system boundaries selection fre­
quency in our sample.
Whenever modelling production processes that generate more than
one product or fulfil more than one function (i.e. multifunctional pro­
cesses), practitioners are required to distribute the input and output
flows between the generated products or functions [10]. A great ma­
jority of the case studies did not address multi-functionality modelling
(164 cases). Among those that did consider flow distribution, the avoi­
ded burden approach stood out, used in 41 case studies. The most used
background database was ecoinvent (97 case studies).
Finally, in terms of reference study period, most case studies
considered that buildings lasted for 50 years. Service lives of 30 and 60
M.R.M. Saade et al. Building and Environment 167 (2020) 106449

Table 1
Selection of system boundaries chosen in sample of case studies. Information within brackets refers to life cycle stages’ acronyms according to EN 15978 [26].
Boundaries Cradle- Cradle-to- Cradle-to- Cradle-to- Cradle-to- Cradle-to- Cradle-to- Cradle-to- Use
to-gate site (A1- gate þ use site þ use (A1- gate þ EoL site þ EoL (A1- gate þ use þ EoL (A1- site þ use þ EoL (A1- (B)
(A1-A3) A4 or 5) (A1-A3 þ B) A4 or 5 þ B) (A1-A3 þ C) A4 or 5 þ C) A3 þ B þ C) A4 or 5 þ B þ C)

Number of 10 15 3 24 5 15 19 121 6
case
studies

years also stood out (44 and 41 case studies, respectively). Thirty-four
case studies did not document the reference period considered.
Although the latter cases addressed either only embodied or operational
loads, clarifying the service life is still crucial for their interpretation, for
benchmark creation and comparability. Additionally, in all cases that
did document the study period, uncertainty analyses regarding how far
these values were from expected service life were absent. Section 3.4.5
further discusses the importance of the service life parameter in wbLCAs.
3.1. Expected outcome 1: a wood frame is environmentally better than
steel and concrete frames
was built in London. To perform a fair comparison, authors derived a
hypothetical wooden building using all the information from the British
case study but adapting it to suit Australian conditions [35].
In terms of GWP, wood framed buildings performed better than
concrete framed buildings in all comparisons (Fig. 3). One steel framed
case study showed lower GWP than its wood counterpart. A pre-
engineered steel was used in that paper’s steel framed case study [34],
which has a high degree of material optimization and durability. The
LCA method designed by those authors translated these qualities into the
smallest embodied GWP. When comparing steel to concrete, one paper
[29] dominated the amount of comparisons portraying concrete as the

Eleven papers ranked wood, concrete and/or steel framed buildings

in terms of their environmental adequacy [13,27–36]. Table 2 shows
global warming potential (GWP) and embodied energy (EE) rankings for
the three options in each paper, and Figs. 3 and 4 show comparisons in
one-on-one combinations. Numbers in figures refer to the times one
specific framed case study performed better than the other to which it is
being compared. Most (7) papers assessed the whole life cycle of the
building (from cradle to grave), while two papers [35,36] adopted a
cradle-to-site approach and two papers [28,32] adopted a
cradle-to-site þ use approach. Apart from Ref. [36], the papers did not
focus exclusively on the frame, but also considered other main materials
that composed the building’s envelope and, in some cases, also the
technical equipment used to provide heating and electricity [13,27,28,
30].
With the exception of [28,35,36], the papers compared the same
building in terms of floor area, service life and function, with an altered
frame. The three exceptions referred to similar existing buildings in Fig. 3. Outline of case studies comparing wood, concrete and steel frames in
terms of function and size, with same reference service life. The terms of their global warming potential throughout the building’s life cycle.
approach followed by Ref. [35] was more peculiar: their concrete case Numbers refer to case studies in which the material (identified by the color)
study building is located in Melbourne, while the wood framed building performed better than the alternative. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of
this article.)
Table 2
GWP and EE rankings (from worst to best performing) on the different concrete,
steel and wood-framed buildings assessed in evaluated papers.
Papers GWP ranking (from highest to EE ranking (from highest to
lowest value) lowest value)

Ajayi et al. [27] concrete > steel > wood –

Alshamrani steel > concrete > precast –
[29] concrete
Azzouz et al. reinforced concrete > lighter wood > reinforced
[30] concrete concrete > steel > lighter
structure > steel > wood concrete structure
Buchanan et al. concrete > steel > wood wood > concrete > steel
[31]
Cole and – steel > concrete > wood
Kernan [32]
Guggemos and steel > concrete steel > concrete
Horvath*
[13]
Lessard et al. concrete > steel > wood
[33]
Ooteghem and steel > wood > pre-engineered steel > wood > pre- Fig. 4. Outline of case studies comparing wood, concrete and steel frames in
Xu [34] steel engineered steel terms of their primary energy demand throughout the building’s life cycle.
Sandanayake concrete > wood – Numbers refer to case studies in which the material (identified by the color)
et al. [35] performed better than the alternative. (For interpretation of the references to
Sinha et al. [36] concrete > wood
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of
–
Xing et al. [28] concrete > steel steel > concrete
this article.)

4
M.R.M. Saade et al.
best option in terms of GWP. Alshamrani [29] compared precast con­
crete, concrete and steel framed options, with varying envelope mate­
rials. The precast concrete framed building was the best choice in terms
of GWP. Steel frame performed worst for almost all one-on-one com­
parisons due to its high energy intensity in the manufacturing phase. The
reference building was located in New York City, in which the electricity
grid is notably fossil fuel-based, which drove the GWP indicator values
for the steel-frame scenarios.
Finally, regarding the frame ranking in terms of primary energy
demand, the study performed by Ref. [34] is once again highlighted in
the steel versus wood comparison. In this case, not only the
pre-engineered steel building had a better environmental performance
than the wood-framed building, but a typical steel frame option also
stood out, due to a preferable roof composition. Buchanan et al. [31]
also portrayed a better steel frame building when compared to wood due
to the consideration of avoided loads in the building’s end of life, related
to recycling 85% of the used steel. The wood framed building’s end of
life, on the other hand, predicted avoided energy generation both from
combustion of waste wood or of recovered methane in the landfill [31].
The benefits from recycling steel in this study, however, surpassed those
of using wood for energy generation. These same authors [31] showed
an analogous outcome for the comparison of concrete and wood framed
buildings, due to the recycling of the steel reinforcing bars within the
concrete structure. Azzouz et al. [30] also showed a building case study
where the wood frame - combined with steel to replace the heavyweight
reinforced structure - was more energy intensive than the reinforced
concrete frame. Authors say that the processing of pressurized timber
panels and the use of gluing materials implied in a less favourable en­
ergy demanding profile.
To sum these findings, apart from wood’s low carbon intensity pro­
file in comparison to concrete, the results point to the inadequacy of
Table 3
Renovating vs. building anew. GWP: global warming potential, PE: primary energy demand, AP: acidification potential, EP: eutrophication potential, HH:
human health, smog: smog formation potential, ODP: ozone layer depletion, RD: resource depletion, EQ: environmental quality. The scenario colors are
replicated in the environmental indicators in which they performed best. % refer to RS impact in relation to the NS impact.
a
Percentage results show median between all cities considering both base case and advanced buildings in terms of energy efficiency. For EQ median was 100%
(equal performance).
5
Building and Environment 167 (2020) 106449
making generalizing assumptions in regard to the best structural mate­
rial (in terms of lowest GWP and EE).
3.2. Expected outcome 2: renovation is environmentally better than
demolition and new construction
Table 3 summarizes the differences found between renovation and
new construction scenarios in the 5 documents [37,38,40-42] that per­
formed that comparison. The environmental preference of renovating or
refurbishing a building over demolishing and building anew is clear.
Exceptions happened for the ozone layer depletion (ODP) and human
health (HH) indicators. Still, in those cases, the differences were quite
small.
Assefa and Ambler [37] state that the assemblies that contribute
most to the ODP in their assessment (windows and exterior walls) are
comparable in all scenarios, and therefore not influenced by reuse or
rebuild activities. The “Preservation Green Lab” report [38], on the
other hand, showed that when repurposing a warehouse into a
multi-family building, the HH indicator pointed to an increase in com­
parison to a new building’s value and was mostly due to the vast amount
of new materials required for the repurposing. Even though this last case
study refers to a residential building – which is outside our initially
proposed scope – we kept it in this analysis to aid in the discussion. The
same report showed that the referred repurposing resulted in a small
increment (þ1%) for the Resource Depletion (RD) indicator when the
warehouse is repurposed into a base case building. When the repur­
posing is performed to build an energy efficient building, a slight
reduction is identified in the same indicator ( 1%). These minor vari­
ations may fall within that indicator’s error margin and can potentially
be disregarded. Our chart shows the medians of results found in that
report, which – in the latter case – implied in a tie between repurposing
M.R.M. Saade et al. Building and Environment 167 (2020) 106449

and rebuilding.
Within the limited scope of our review’s sample, it seems that the
expected outcome does confirm itself for the most typically measured
impact indicators GWP and primary energy demand (PE). A widened
scope of environmental indicators, however, potentially disputes the
rule of thumb.

3.3. Expected outcome 3: operational loads are greater than embodied

loads

Our outcome showed two different trends in embodied versus

operational load distribution, related to buildings’ energy efficiency. We
therefore chose to categorize buildings as (i) current, where state-of-the-
art measures for decreasing the energy demand were not implemented,
electricity was mostly provided directly from the grid and heating was
mostly provided from fossil fuel based equipment; and (ii) advanced,
which represented low energy, passive, net zero and plus energy
buildings, with decreased energy demand.
Sixty-six case studies documenting embodied versus operational
GWP and PE loads fed the information shown in Figs. 5 to 8. Figs. 5 and 6
show that embodied loads become more significant as we move towards
Fig. 6. Plotted distribution of embodied (blue) and operational (grey) primary
advanced buildings in terms of energy efficiency. Trend identification in
energy demand share values found in all case studies. % labels refer to medians.
Fig. 6 is hindered by the lower number of case studies showing the
(For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
contribution ranking for PE. Nonetheless, the high correlation between
referred to the Web version of this article.)
GWP and PE indicators [39] allows for the same conclusions to be made.
The outcome confirms previous studies that discuss how advance­
The importance of properly calculating and attempting to minimize
ments in buildings’ operational energy performance led to an increase in
embodied loads is made clear, corroborating findings of many experts in
pre-use environmental loads [5,25,43]. Embodied loads’ contribution
the field [1,5,21]. Figs. 7 and 8 depict the load balance for each case
grows not only due to the relative decrease of operational loads’ per­
study assessed. A specific case study documented null operational loads
centage, but also due to the amount of resources consumed and emis­
refering to a plus-energy administration building in Germany. Case
sions generated in producing the increased and improved materials to
study authors modeled the energy consumption in the operation stage
provide said operational decrease. Increased thermal insulation or
using a tool that included the gains from a rooftop photovoltaic system.
technical on-site equipment to generate renewable energy are expect­
The generated energy surpassed the operational energy demand, which
edly more energy and carbon-intensive in their production than the
justified the null loads.
originally used construction materials. The third assessed rule of thumb
is therefore contested, since the trend weakens it. If public policies
requiring decreased energy demands in buildings are to be imple­ 3.4. Advanced approaches in whole building LCAs
mented, one can expect embodied loads in most buildings to become as
relevant as (if not larger than) operational loads. 3.4.1. Concrete carbonation modelling in LCA
Concrete structures react with airborne CO2, re-absorbing part of the
gas emitted during the cement calcination process. This reaction is
referred to as carbonation and is seldom investigated in concrete LCAs
[44]. Three papers [45–47] in our sample considered carbonation in
concrete structures of wbLCA studies, and one paper was added through
the snowball approach [48]. In terms of the investigated rule of thumbs,
this outcome corroborated that wood frames are preferable to concrete
frames from a carbon emission standpoint.
Furthermore [45], discusses that carbonation in concrete’s primary
life is minor (less than 2% in a mix with 100% ordinary Portland
cement), but after crushing, when the component is used as a recycled
aggregate (RA), significant carbon uptake can take place (around 20%).
Carbonation is however affected by the RA’s application type and sur­
face area exposure and the question of which system life cycle should be
accredited for such CO2 sequestration becomes apparent.
Souto-Martinez et al. [47], on their turn, showed that the calculated
carbonation in their assessment did not deeply affect concrete’s envi­
ronmental profile – adding supplementary cementitious materials (SCM)
is still more influential to diminishing the impact then considering the
uptake.

3.4.2. Biogenic carbon modelling in LCA

Fig. 5. Plotted distribution of embodied (blue) and operational (grey) GHG Biomass based materials contain biogenic carbon in their composi­
emissions share values found in all case studies. % labels refer to medians. (For tion. When bio-based materials are degraded or combusted, this
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is biogenic carbon is emitted mostly as CO2 [48]. As opposed to fossil
referred to the Web version of this article.) carbon emissions, biogenic emissions sourced from carbon-neutral

6
M.R.M. Saade et al. Building and Environment 167 (2020) 106449

Fig. 7. Detailed embodied vs. operational GHG emissions in each assessed case study. Numbers refer to percentage contribution to the whole building impact. C:
current buildings; A: advanced buildings in terms of energy efficiency.

Fig. 8. Detailed embodied vs. operational primary energy demand in each assessed case study. Numbers refer to percentage contribution to the whole building
impact. C: current buildings; A: advanced buildings in terms of energy efficiency.

sources do not represent a long-term net addition of CO2 to the atmo­ One paper modelling biogenic carbon uptake matched our search
sphere [49]. For those reasons, biogenic CO2 is often given a null GWP protocol [46] while another was added via snowball [48]. Both studies
and is commonly disregarded in LCA literature related to bio-product considered CO2 uptake by trees to be equal to the wood carbon content
systems. and assumed that wood came from a sustainably managed forest. Pittau

7
M.R.M. Saade et al.
et al. [46] considered 0.5 kg C/kg biomass as wood carbon content,
while Fouquet et al. [48] estimated the amount of sequestered carbon
using the trees’ volume, wood density and growth factor given by a
regional study on the forest assessed, and considering a carbon fraction
of dry matter of 0.5 kg C/kg dry matter.
The expected favourable performance of wood frames over concrete
frames was confirmed. However, the trend in the balance between
embodied and operational loads was questioned in Ref. [48] (see Fig. 9):
the consideration of biogenic carbon uptake led to lower embodied loads
(1.46E4 kg of CO2eq for building with landfill scenario and 3.57E4 kg of
CO2eq with incineration scenario) in a highly energy efficient timber
building, when compared to the same building with a concrete frame
(8.86E4 kg of CO2eq for concrete block frame and 1.13E5 kg of CO2eq
for cast concrete). In the timber framed building, the end of life scenario
also had implications in the load balance. The landfill scenario resulted
in less embodied emissions due to the assumption that 97% of the wood
carbon is permanently sequestered and 75% of the methane released
was assumed to be recovered and combusted to form CO2 [48].
Even though not related to the investigated rules of thumb, Pittau
et al. [46] documented a noteworthy outcome where they quantified the
life cycle impact of different wall assemblies that included three
renewable materials: timber, hempcrete and straw. They showed that
since timber-sourced biomass has a relatively long regeneration period
(90 years), the climate change mitigation benefits due to carbon storage
in timber elements is not necessarily sufficient to offset the embodied
GHG emissions of the timber wall in addition to the GHG emissions that
occur at end-of-life, even when product substitution (i.e. system
expansion) is considered. On the other hand, straw and hempcrete had a
net negative climate change impact and this outcome was largely due to
the fast rotation period (1 year) exhibited by these biomass resource
pools. However, the authors did not consider associated upstream
biogenic CO2 emissions due to bio-material processing requirements,
nor did they consider the counterfactual which has been recommended
to be considered in a comprehensive review on quantifying the effects of
biogenic carbon dynamics in LCA, and especially from a comparison
perspective [50].
3.4.3. Consequential LCA
A consequential LCA aims to measure the environmental conse­
quences of changes. It attempts to describe how environmentally rele­
vant input and output flows of a given product system change in
response to possible changes in the life cycle [51], associated with the
demand of the studied object.
Four papers matched our search protocol for comparative conse­
quential wbLCAs [14,52–54]. The ranking between concrete and steel
building frames was revisited by Ref. [14]. These authors showed that
consequential LCAs portrayed concrete as better than steel more
frequently than in attributional LCAs, both in terms of GWP and PE.
Fig. 10, based on [53], shows how the comparison of embodied vs.
Fig. 9. Embodied vs. operational GHG emissions for a) timber framed buildings and b) concrete framed. Figure built based on findings from Ref. [48].
8
Building and Environment 167 (2020) 106449
operational loads in a highly energy efficient building was challenged, as
in the previous subsection. The consequential LCA showed a lower
embodied GHG emissions share, shifting the contribution profile that
would be expected for that type of construction. The difference seems to
come from the consideration of a marginal electricity mix, that predicts
more carbon-intensive energy sources. Contrarily, the literature often
points to a trend in decarbonising grids (and – consequently – marginal
mixes as well), due to ambitious carbon reduction goals set by some
countries and to possible taxation mechanisms that are expected to take
place [55–58]. Nonetheless, temporal and spatial variability play a
major role in determining marginal mixes [59], so a certain level of
uncertainty is to be expected in predictions for marginal mixes’ carbon
intensity such as the one presented by Ref. [53].
3.4.4. Dynamic LCA
In dynamic LCAs, the temporal variation of measured flows is
incorporated. These flows become a function of time instead of a fixed
value throughout the studied life cycle [60]. The characterization model
in the impact assessment stage also holds the potential to be solved
dynamically, with time-dependant characterization factors [60].
Even though 6 of the assessed papers adopted a dynamic modelling
approach [46,48,54,61–63], the use of that modelling did not revisit any
of the rules of thumb since none of the focused comparisons were made.
Nonetheless, relevant discussions regarding using static versus dynamic
modelling arose.
Karl et al. [62] and Roux et al. [54,63] focused on the dynamic
modelling of electricity consumption in the buildings’ use phase. Roux
et al. [63] also took a dynamic modelling approach from the perspective
of considering a changing climate as an input to their energy simulation
modelling routine. Collinge et al. [61] included the dynamic modelling
in different fronts: (i) within the supply chain, considering fluctuations
in fuel mix and efficiency of the electricity grid, in origin of natural gas
and petroleum supplies and in regional waste treatment practices; (ii)
within the inventory, considering the influence of environmental regu­
lations on pollutant emissions and changes in industrial processes’ ef­
ficiency, and finally (iii) within the characterization factors matrix,
considering fluctuations in system sensitivity due to background con­
centrations or distribution of populations, changes in ambient condi­
tions affecting emission fates, and varying analysis time horizons. Pittau
et al. [46] and Fouquet et al. [48] considered a dynamic GWP charac­
terization factor, adopting an approach developed by Levasseur et al.
[60].
Results pointed that a static modelling can lead to underestimations
(up to 60% according to Ref. [61], depending on the impact category
assessed) or overestimations (up to 160% according to Ref. [62]), which
hold the potential to deeply affect rankings in buildings’ comparisons.
Collinge et al. [61] state that the decrease in values for dynamic LCA is
due to lowering of emission factors for criteria air pollutants predicted in
their dynamic model. Karl et al. [62], however, justify their
M.R.M. Saade et al.
Fig. 10. Embodied vs. operational GHG emissions in a passive building considering attributional and consequential approaches. The slices represent different
modeled scenarios of climate change effect and electricity mix alterations. Numbers stand for percentage of contribution to the whole building impact. Figure built
based on findings from Ref. [53].
overestimation on certain energy production processes present in the
reference static grid data but not present to the same extent in the dy­
namic energy grid. Additionally, in terms of data granularity for dy­
namic electricity grids, Karl et al. [62] state that using daily over hourly
grid composition is wiser, since the gain in resolution from using the
hourly approach does not seem to compensate the increased amount of
data needed. Roux et al. [63] focused on integrating climate change and
future energy mix scenarios in the LCA of a home in Macon, France. They
found that accounting for different climate change scenarios in the long
term (2071–2100) led to a heating decrease (relative to recent historical
climate) of 24 and 44% whereas cooling requirements increased 4–8
times.
3.4.5. Service life prediction in LCA
Eight papers considering different approaches for service life
modelling in building LCAs were traced [64–71]. One paper [72] was
added through the snowball approach.
While some papers adopted a deterministic approach towards service
life variation [64–67], others aimed to assess actual variability of
adopted study periods, through varying mathematical models [68–71].
Regardless of the paths taken, all authors seem to reach the same ex­
pected conclusion: service life definition plays a deeply significant role
in the environmental outcome of a building, and on the load contribu­
tion of each life cycle phase. In fact [70], used both screening and global
sensitivity analysis methods to identify the most influential factors in a
building LCA outcome and proved that – for the screening methods –
service life was the most influential factor, while for global sensitivity
methods it was the second most influential factor, losing only to the time
horizon adopted for GWP.
Moreover [67], argue that the most commonly adopted lifespan for
Fig. 11. Embodied (EC) vs. operational (OC) GHG emissions considering varying service lives. Figure built based on findings from Ref. [67]. Operational emissions
were equal to 14.29 kgCO2eq/m2 in all cases.
9
Building and Environment 167 (2020) 106449
buildings LCA has been 50 years (confirmed by our sample, as discussed
in section 3), and that value is based on depreciation principles for
construction investments. Authors argue that “factual data for current
building lifespans and annual rates of new construction, renovation and
demolition indicate that an average lifespan of 100 years or more would
be more accurate in LCA calculations in a wider European context”. This
same author documented the difference between embodied versus
operational loads when varying the service life between 50 and 120
years (Fig. 11). Once again, the expected trend in increasing embodied
loads presented in section 3.3 is revisited here, showing how service life
scenarios might affect the discussion.
Within [46], the estimated service life of wall assemblies under
comparison were based on ISO 15686 methodology [73]. While it is
clearly preferable to predict performance based on laboratory or real-life
data, where microclimate is well known and the performance of the
component or element is accurately characterized [73], this approach
can be a challenging ideal to live up to from an LCA practitioner’s point
of view. Due to these barriers, a simpler ‘factor method’ is recommended
for such estimations, where the purpose is to prove a ‘rough-and-ready’
means of estimating, and not predicting, service life [74]. Therefore, as a
clear next step, it is recommended that the LCA community look towards
such performance-based estimation approaches as provided in the ISO
15686 series and compile an open source database of element-specific
reference service lives and corresponding factors that can be utilized
by all.
3.4.6. Rebound effect modelling in LCA
None of the papers in our initially selected sample dealt with the
rebound effect in their LCA modelling. However, two papers were
identified via snowball [75,76]. While the three main rules of thumb
M.R.M. Saade et al.
assessed were not questioned by these papers, relevant affirmations
were made. Cellura et al. [75,76] define the so-called rebound effect as
an attempt to describe the effect that a lower cost, due to increased
energy efficiency or savings, has on consumer behavior. Authors claim
to calculate the indirect rebound effect, which assumes that a lower
price of the energy service increases consumers’ income and “this may
lead to an additional demand for other goods and services”. The authors
assessed the rebound effect arising from benefits of public policies aimed
at building energy efficiency improvements in Italy, and showed that the
avoided loads can be up to 14% higher than expected [75,76]. Thus,
attempting to predict the environmental benefits associated to a less
impacting building stock might be a biased endeavour without consid­
eration of rebound effects.
3.4.7. Optimization in LCA
In order to assess a wider sample of papers, this section also analyzes
papers that did not necessarily adopt a mathematical optimization
model, but used a simplified multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)
tool. Our 10-paper group is composed of three papers that adopted
MCDM [77–79] and seven papers that used mathematical optimization
methods [80–86].
Almost all papers addressed the search of an optimal solution
considering environmental impacts and costs, with the exception of [79,
85]. The former compared different midpoint indicators to discuss the
validity and reliability of single score results, while the latter attempted
to find an optimal solution considering the environmental impacts of
envelopes and the building’s energy consumption in the operation
phase.
The investigated rules of thumb were not thoroughly revisited, apart
from a concrete frame being considered an optimal solution when
compared to a wood frame in the MCDM analysis performed by
Ref. [77]. These authors considered the cost of both frames in their
decision-making framework, which played a significant role in posi­
tioning concrete as the best option.
3.4.8. Phase change materials in LCA
Seven of the evaluated papers performed typical LCAs of phase
change materials (PCM) [87–93]. Since, as described in section 3, this
analysis refers to an advancement in material as opposed to method,
changes in the expected outcomes were not identified. An interesting
outcome from this evaluation was the perception that the environmental
benefit of adding PCMs to building envelopes is not clear: in many cases
no PCM addition in insulated spaces was environmentally better than
adding PCM to the envelope’s main material. In these occasions, PCM
showed a high embodied energy, which negatively influenced its envi­
ronmental profile [90,91]. Moreover, it seems that PCM’s attractiveness
reaches its peak in warm climate environments.
3.4.9. Recommendations arising from performed review
As previously indicated, our main goal was investigating if certain
rules of thumb were confirmed by published wbLCA studies. An in-depth
analysis of the different methodological aspects within each study that
may have led to diverging outcomes is out of the scope set for this re­
view. Still, the critical assessment of over 250 case studies within 70
documents (accounting for typical and advanced LCA papers) provided a
reasonable overview on how practitioners usually model their life cycle
studies and which methodological areas lack attention and/or trans­
parency. In fact, perhaps the most pressing recommendation is the latter,
i.e., the need for clarity in methodological choices. Within (what was
here conventionally called as) typical LCAs, a clear description of the
adopted functional unit, building service life, and gross versus net floor
space was many times absent. Another methodological choice that de­
mands transparency is the data source – practitioners are urged to not
only declare the background data source, but carefully provide the
version and names of datasets used. Foreground data, in turn, should be
provided (ideally) in their entirety, as supporting material to published
10
Building and Environment 167 (2020) 106449
LCAs. Reproducibility, proper revision and interpretation can only be
achieved when that information is available.
Another recommendation involves applying more effort into the
interpretation phase of an LCA, by performing uncertainty and/or
sensitivity analyses. These evaluations enrich results and lift the quality
of their discussion. As LCA evolves, a simple presentation of the outcome
of the assessment – which knowingly refers solely to potential (i.e. not
accurate) impacts – bears the risk of becoming scientifically superficial
[94].
A quest for more in-depth LCA modelling might bring forth mathe­
matical complexity and, when dealing with predictions of potential ef­
fects, some have questioned if the added complexity is worthwhile [95,
96]. While that inquiry is clearly valid, the adoption of more advanced
LCA modeling techniques has enabled an increase in robustness of LCA
models while also providing novel perspectives which can allow for
more realistic assessments. Be it in considering market mechanisms (e.g.
in consequential approaches), physical phenomena previously dis­
regarded (e.g. biogenic CO2 dynamics or carbonation in concrete) or
accounting for temporal variations in systems with relatively long ser­
vice lives (e.g. performing dynamic modelling in wbLCAs), the increased
model complexity stimulates well-informed decision making and can aid
paradigm shifts to ensure perverse incentives are avoided.
Thus, as a final recommendation, practitioners should feel stimu­
lated to add a certain level of depth to their studies—as illustrated by the
diverse range of studies presented in this review—with the goal of
providing new insights to fixed perceptions on the environmental per­
formance of the built environment.
4. Conclusions
Our systematic review showed that the fixed perceptions on certain
aspects of buildings’ environmental performance are not always
confirmed. The outcome of an LCA study is deeply dependent of the
choices made and scenarios built when modeling the life cycle of the
investigated object. When applying the method to a complex system,
such as a building, the number of crucial issues to address increases, and
rules of thumb such as the ones here investigated lose meaning and
veracity.
Furthermore, as the method itself evolves and incorporates deepened
mathematical models, outcomes become less predictable, and para­
digms should be interpreted with care. One could conclude that the
complex systems that a building is composed of are peculiar enough to
deny qualitative assumptions such as the ones exposed in the intro­
duction. Still, in order to scientifically ground sectorial behavior shifts
and public policies, some aggregation between different buildings is
expected, which could be achieved by grouping buildings based on ar­
chetypes. The discussion in section 3.3 showed that the load balance
trend between embodied and operational stages seems to be replicated
within a group of buildings brought together according to their energy
efficiency level. As different modelling assumptions take place, how­
ever, these archetype-based groups must be revisited (as per the dis­
cussion in section 3.4).
Lastly, regardless of denying or confirming rules of thumb, this re­
view’s outcome highlighted the importance of transparency regarding
practitioners’ methodological choices. Basic aspects within an LCA, such
as functional unit and system boundary definitions, were sometimes
hard to trace. Results of unclear LCAs lack significance and hinder any
collective conclusion that could aid in environmental paradigm shifts.
Funding source
Funding of this study was provided by Natural Resources Canada
(NRCan) and National Research Council of Canada (NRC) [Contract
number NRC 920259].
M.R.M. Saade et al. Building and Environment 167 (2020) 106449

Declaration of competing interest [25] A. Passer, H. Kreiner, P. Maydl, Assessment of the environmental performance of
buildings: a critical evaluation of the influence of technical building equipment on
residential buildings, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 (2012) 1116–1130, https://doi.
None. org/10.1007/s11367-012-0435-6.
[26] EN 15978, Sustainability of Construction Works — Assessment of Environmental
Performance of Buildings — Calculation Method, 2011.
Appendix A. Supplementary data [27] S.O. Ajayi, L.O. Oyedele, M. Bilal, O.O. Akinade, H.A. Alaka, H.A. Owolabi, K.
O. Kadiri, Waste effectiveness of the construction industry: understanding the
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. impediments and requisites for improvements, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 102
(2015) 101–112, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.06.001.
org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106449.
[28] S. Xing, Z. Xu, G. Jun, Inventory analysis of LCA on steel- and concrete-
construction office buildings, Energy Build. 40 (2008) 1188–1193, https://doi.org/
References 10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.10.016.
[29] O.S. Alshamrani, Life cycle assessment of low-rise office building with different
structure–envelope configurations, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 43 (2015) 193–200, https://
[1] G.A. Blengini, T. Di Carlo, The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and
doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2015-0431.
materials in the LCA of low energy buildings, Energy Build. 42 (2010) 869–880,
[30] A. Azzouz, M. Borchers, J. Moreira, A. Mavrogianni, Life cycle assessment of
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.12.009.
energy conservation measures during early stage office building design: a case
[2] G. Verbeeck, H. Hens, Life cycle inventory of buildings: a calculation method,
study in London, UK, Energy Build. 139 (2017) 547–568, https://doi.org/10.1016/
Build. Environ. Times 45 (2010) 1037–1041, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
j.enbuild.2016.12.089.
buildenv.2009.10.012.
[31] A. Buchanan, S. John, S. Love, Life cycle assessment and carbon footprint of
[3] M. Buyle, J. Braet, A. Audenaert, Life cycle assessment in the construction sector: a
multistorey timber buildings compared with steel and concrete buildings, N. Z. J.
review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 26 (2013) 379–388, https://doi.org/10.1016/
For. 57 (2013) 9–18. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid¼2-s2.0-84
j.rser.2013.05.001.
899824576&partnerID¼40&md5¼7126086cd27dacb9cdfb5bab3b4612e5.
[4] A. Stephan, R.H. Crawford, K. de Myttenaere, A comprehensive assessment of the
[32] R.J. Cole, P.C. Kernan, Life-cycle energy use in office buildings, Build. Environ. 31
life cycle energy demand of passive houses, Appl. Energy 112 (2013) 23–34,
(1996) 307–317, https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1323(96)00017-0.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.05.076.
[33] Y. Lessard, C. Anand, P. Blanchet, C. Frenette, B. Amor, LEED v4: where are we
[5] M.K. Dixit, J.L. Fern� andez-Solís, S. Lavy, C.H. Culp, Need for an embodied energy
now? Critical assessment through the LCA of an office building using a low impact
measurement protocol for buildings: a review paper, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
energy consumption mix, J. Ind. Ecol. 22 (2018) 1105–1116, https://doi.org/
16 (2012) 3730–3743, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.021.
10.1111/jiec.12647.
[6] UN Environment, IEA, Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction 2018 Global
[34] K. Van Ooteghem, L. Xu, The life-cycle assessment of a single-storey retail building
Status Report, 2018, p. 325. http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/
in Canada, Build. Environ. Times 49 (2012) 212–226, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
06/17-8652_GSR2018_FullReport_web_final_.pdf.
buildenv.2011.09.028.
[7] Architecture 2030, Roadmap to Zero Emissions. Submission to the Ad Hoc Working
[35] M. Sandanayake, W. Lokuge, G. Zhang, S. Setunge, Q. Thushar, Greenhouse gas
Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, 2014. https://architect
emissions during timber and concrete building construction —a scenario based
ure2030.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Roadmap-to-Zero-Emissions.pdf.
comparative case study, Sustain. Cities Soc. 38 (2018) 91–97, https://doi.org/
[8] Bionova Ltd, The Embodied Carbon Review: Embodied Carbon Reduction of 100þ
10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.017.
Regulations & Rating Sytems, 2018.
[36] R. Sinha, M. Lennartsson, B. Frostell, Environmental footprint assessment of
[9] ISO 14040, The International Standards Organisation. Environmental Management
building structures: a comparative study, Build. Environ. 104 (2016) 162–171,
— Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and Framework, 2006, https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.012.
10.1136/bmj.332.7550.1107. Geneva, Switzerland.
[37] G. Assefa, C. Ambler, To demolish or not to demolish: life cycle consideration of
[10] ISO 14044, The International Standards Organisation. Environmental Management
repurposing buildings, Sustain. Cities Soc. 28 (2017) 146–153, https://doi.org/
— Life Cycle Assessment — Requirements and Guidelines, 2006. Geneva,
10.1016/j.scs.2016.09.011.
Switzerland.
[38] Preservation Green Lab, The Greenest Building : Quantifying the Environmental
[11] C. Knoeri, E. Sany� e-Mengual, H.-J. Althaus, Comparative LCA of recycled and
Value of Building Reuse, 2011. https://living-future.org/wp-content/upl
conventional concrete for structural applications, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18
oads/2016/11/The_Greenest_Building.pdf.
(2013) 909–918, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0544-2.
[39] S. Lasvaux, F. Achim, P. Garat, B. Peuportier, J. Chevalier, G. Habert, Correlations
[12] I. Zabalza Bribi� an, A. Valero Capilla, A. Aranda Us�on, Life cycle assessment of
in Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods (LCIA) and indicators for construction
building materials: comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and
materials: what matters? Ecol. Indicat. 67 (2016) 174–182, https://doi.org/
evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential, Build. Environ. 46 (2011)
10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.056.
1133–1140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.12.002.
[40] C. Langston, E.H.W. Chan, E.H.K. Yung, Hybrid input-output analysis of embodied
[13] A.A. Guggemos, A. Horvath, Comparison of environmental effects of steel- and
carbon and construction cost differences between new-build and refurbished
concrete-framed buildings, J. Infrastruct. Syst. 11 (2005) 93–101, https://doi.org/
projects, Sustain. Times 10 (2018), https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093229.
10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342 (2005)11:2(93).
[41] A.-F. Marique, B. Rossi, Cradle-to-grave life-cycle assessment within the built
[14] H.W. Kua, M. Maghimai, Steel-versus-Concrete debate revisited: global warming
environment: comparison between the refurbishment and the complete
potential and embodied energy analyses based on attributional and consequential
reconstruction of an office building in Belgium, J. Environ. Manag. 224 (2018)
life cycle perspectives, J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (2017) 82–100, https://doi.org/10.1111/
396–405, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.055.
jiec.12409.
[42] F.N. Rasmussen, T. Malmqvist, A. Moncaster, A.H. Wiberg, H. Birgisd� ottir,
[15] C. Skaar, N. Labonnote, K. Gradeci, From zero emission buildings (ZEB) to Zero
Analysing methodological choices in calculations of embodied energy and GHG
emission neighbourhoods (ZEN): a mapping review of algorithm-based LCA,
emissions from buildings, Energy Build. 158 (2018) 1487–1498, https://doi.org/
Sustain. Times 10 (2018), https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072405.
10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.11.013.
[16] D. Trigaux, B. Oosterbosch, F. De Troyer, K. Allacker, A design tool to assess the
[43] Z. Alwan, P. Jones, The importance of embodied energy in carbon footprint
heating energy demand and the associated financial and environmental impact in
assessment, Struct. Surv. 32 (2014) 49–60, https://doi.org/10.1108/SS-01-2013-
neighbourhoods, Energy Build. 152 (2017) 516–523, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
0012.
enbuild.2017.07.057.
[44] T. García-Segura, V. Yepes, J. Alcal� a, Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of
[17] W. Trusty, S. Horst, Integrating LCA Tools in Green Building Rating Systems, 2007,
blended cement concrete including carbonation and durability, Int. J. Life Cycle
pp. 1–7.
Assess. 19 (2014) 3–12, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0614-0.
[18] C. Wohlin, Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a
[45] F. Collins, Inclusion of carbonation during the life cycle of built and recycled
replication in software engineering, in: 18th Int. Conf. Eval. Assess. Softw. Eng.
concrete: influence on their carbon footprint, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15 (2010)
(EASE 2014), 2014, pp. 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268.
549–556, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0191-4.
[19] G. V Glass, Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research, Educ. Res. 5 (1976)
[46] F. Pittau, F. Krause, G. Lumia, G. Habert, Fast-growing bio-based materials as an
3–8. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1174772.
opportunity for storing carbon in exterior walls, Build. Environ. 129 (2018)
[20] J.H. Littell, J. Corcoran, V. Pillai, Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis, Oxford
117–129, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.12.006.
University Press, New York, NY, 2008.
[47] A. Souto-Martinez, J.H. Arehart, W.V. Srubar III, Cradle-to-gate CO2e emissions vs.
[21] F. Pomponi, A. Moncaster, Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the built
in situ CO2 sequestration of structural concrete elements, Energy Build. 167 (2018)
environment – what does the evidence say? J. Environ. Manag. 181 (2016)
301–311, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.02.042.
687–700, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.036.
[48] M. Fouquet, A. Levasseur, M. Margni, A. Lebert, S. Lasvaux, B. Souyri, C. Buh� e,
[22] F. Fu, J. Sun, C. Pasquire, Carbon emission assessment for steel structure based on
M. Woloszyn, Methodological challenges and developments in LCA of low energy
lean construction process, J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 79 (2015) 401–416, https://doi.
buildings: application to biogenic carbon and global warming assessment, Build.
org/10.1007/s10846-014-0106-x.
Environ. 90 (2015) 51–59, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.03.022.
[23] A. Coelho, J. De Brito, Influence of construction and demolition waste management
[49] C. Breton, P. Blanchet, B. Amor, R. Beauregard, W.-S. Chang, Assessing the climate
on the environmental impact of buildings, Waste Manag. 32 (2012) 532–541,
change impacts of biogenic carbon in buildings: a critical review of two main
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.11.011.
dynamic approaches, Sustain. Times 10 (2018), https://doi.org/10.3390/
[24] V. Echarri-Iribarren, F. Echarri-Iribarren, C. Rizo-Maestre, Ceramic panels versus
su10062020.
aluminium in buildings: energy consumption and environmental impact
assessment with a new methodology, Appl. Energy (2019) 959–974, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.08.091.

11
M.R.M. Saade et al.
[50] T. Helin, L. Sokka, S. Soimakallio, K. Pingoud, T. Pajula, Approaches for inclusion
of forest carbon cycle in life cycle assessment - a review, GCB Bioenergy 5 (2013)
475–486, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12016.
[51] T. Ekvall, B.P. Weidema, System boundaries and input data in consequential life
cycle inventory analysis, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 9 (2004) 161–171, https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF02994190.
[52] A. Ghose, M. Pizzol, S.J. McLaren, Consequential LCA modelling of building
refurbishment in New Zealand- an evaluation of resource and waste management
scenarios, J. Clean. Prod. 165 (2017) 119–133, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.07.099.
[53] C. Roux, P. Schalbart, E. Assoumou, B. Peuportier, Integrating climate change and
energy mix scenarios in LCA of buildings and districts, Appl. Energy 184 (2016)
619–629, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.043.
[54] C. Roux, P. Schalbart, B. Peuportier, Development of an electricity system model
allowing dynamic and marginal approaches in LCA—tested in the French context
of space heating in buildings, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22 (2017) 1177–1190,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1229-z.
[55] International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives 2017, Catalysing
Energy Technology Transformations, 2017.
[56] L. Stamford, A. Azapagic, Life cycle sustainability assessment of UK electricity
scenarios to 2070, Energy Sustain. Dev. 23 (2014) 194–211, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.esd.2014.09.008.
[57] UK Energy Research Centre, Energy 2050 - Making the Transition to a Secure and
Low-Carbon Energy System: Synthesis Report, 2009. London.
[58] T.O. Wiedmann, S. Suh, K. Feng, M. Lenzen, A. Acquaye, K. Scott, J.R. Barrett,
Application of hybrid life cycle approaches to emerging energy technologies – the
case of wind power in the UK, Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (2011) 5900–5907,
https://doi.org/10.1021/es2007287.
[59] V. Olkkonen, S. Syri, Spatial and temporal variations of marginal electricity
generation: the case of the Finnish, Nordic, and European energy systems up to
2030, J. Clean. Prod. 126 (2016) 515–525, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.03.112.
[60] A. Levasseur, P. Lesage, M. Margni, L. Desch^ enes, R. Samson, Considering time in
LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2010) 3169–3174, https://doi.org/10.1021/es9030003.
[61] W.O. Collinge, A.E. Landis, A.K. Jones, L.A. Schaefer, M.M. Bilec, Dynamic life
cycle assessment: framework and application to an institutional building, Int. J.
Life Cycle Assess. 18 (2013) 538–552, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0528-
2.
[62] A.A.W. Karl, E. Maslesa, M. Birkved, Environmental performance assessment of the
use stage of buildings using dynamic high-resolution energy consumption and data
on grid composition, Build. Environ. 147 (2019) 97–107, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2018.09.042.
[63] C. Roux, P. Schalbart, B. Peuportier, Accounting for temporal variation of
electricity production and consumption in the LCA of an energy-efficient house,
J. Clean. Prod. 113 (2016) 532–540, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.11.052.
[64] S. Carlisle, E. Friedlander, The influence of durability and recycling on life cycle
impacts of window frame assemblies, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21 (2016)
1645–1657, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1093-x.
[65] E.B.P. De Castro, M. Mequignon, L. Adolphe, P. Koptschitz, Impact of the lifespan
of different external walls of buildings on greenhouse gas emissions under tropical
climate conditions, Energy Build. 76 (2014) 228–237, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2014.02.071.
[66] S.Y. Janjua, P.K. Sarker, W.K. Biswas, Impact of service life on the environmental
performance of buildings, Buildings 9 (2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings9010009.
[67] R. Marsh, Building lifespan: effect on the environmental impact of building
components in a Danish perspective, Architect. Eng. Des. Manag. 13 (2017)
80–100, https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2016.1205471.
[68] W. Galle, N. De Temmerman, K. Allacker, R. De Meyer, Geometric service life
modelling and discounting, a practical method for parametrised life cycle
assessment, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22 (2017) 1191–1209, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11367-016-1230-6.
[69] E. Hoxha, G. Habert, J. Chevalier, M. Bazzana, R. Le Roy, Method to analyse the
contribution of material’s sensitivity in buildings’ environmental impact, J. Clean.
Prod. 66 (2014) 54–64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.056.
[70] M.-L. Pannier, P. Schalbart, B. Peuportier, Comprehensive assessment of sensitivity
analysis methods for the identification of influential factors in building life cycle
assessment, J. Clean. Prod. 199 (2018) 466–480, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.07.070.
[71] J.D. Silvestre, A. Silva, J. De Brito, Uncertainty modelling of service life and
environmental performance to reduce risk in building design decisions, J. Civ. Eng.
Manag. 21 (2015) 308–322, https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2014.890649.
[72] C.B. Aktas, M.M. Bilec, Impact of lifetime on US residential building LCA results,
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 (2012) 337–349, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-
0363-x.
[73] ISO 15686-2, Buildings and Constructed Assets – Service Life Planning – Part 2:
Service Life Prediction Procedures, 2012. Geneva, Switzerland.
12
Building and Environment 167 (2020) 106449
[74] H. Davies, D. Wyatt, Appropriate use of the ISO 15686-1 factor method for
durability and service life prediction, Build. Res. Inf. 32 (2004) 552–553, https://
doi.org/10.1080/0961321042000291938.
[75] M. Cellura, A. Di Gangi, S. Longo, A. Orioli, An Italian input–output model for the
assessment of energy and environmental benefits arising from retrofit actions of
buildings, Energy Build. 62 (2013) 97–106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2013.02.056.
[76] M. Cellura, F. Guarino, S. Longo, M. Mistretta, A. Orioli, The role of the building
sector for reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gases: an Italian case
study, Renew. Energy 60 (2013) 586–597, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2013.06.019.
[77] A. Invidiata, M. Lavagna, E. Ghisi, Selecting design strategies using multi-criteria
decision making to improve the sustainability of buildings, Build. Environ. 139
(2018) 58–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.041.
[78] L. U�z�silaityte, V. Martinaitis, Search for optimal solution of public building
renovation in terms of life cycle, J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 18 (2010)
102–110, https://doi.org/10.3846/jeelm.2010.12.
[79] S. Vil�cekov� a, M. Cul�
� akov� a, E.K. Burdov� a, J. Katunsk�a, Energy and environmental
evaluation of non-transparent constructions of building envelope for wooden
houses, Energies 8 (2015) 11047–11075, https://doi.org/10.3390/en81011047.
[80] J. Carreras, C. Pozo, D. Boer, G. Guill�en-Gos� albez, J.A. Caballero, R. Ruiz-Femenia,
L. Jim�enez, Systematic approach for the life cycle multi-objective optimization of
buildings combining objective reduction and surrogate modeling, Energy Build.
130 (2016) 506–518, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.07.062.
[81] J. Carreras, D. Boer, G. Guill�en-Gos� albez, L.F. Cabeza, M. Medrano, L. Jim�enez,
Multi-objective optimization of thermal modelled cubicles considering the total
cost and life cycle environmental impact, Energy Build. 88 (2015) 335–346,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.12.007.
[82] J. Hester, J. Gregory, F.-J. Ulm, R. Kirchain, Building design-space exploration
through quasi-optimization of life cycle impacts and costs, Build. Environ. Times
144 (2018) 34–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.08.003.
[83] F. Magrassi, A.D. Borghi, M. Gallo, C. Strazza, M. Robba, Optimal planning of
sustainable buildings: integration of life cycle assessment and optimization in a
decision support system, Energies 9 (2016), https://doi.org/10.3390/en9070490.
[84] S.A. Sharif, A. Hammad, Simulation-based multi-objective optimization of
institutional building renovation considering energy consumption, life-cycle cost
and life-cycle assessment, J. Build. Eng. 21 (2019) 429–445, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2018.11.006.
[85] J.L. Sohn, P.P. Kalbar, M. Birkved, Life cycle based dynamic assessment coupled
with multiple criteria decision analysis: a case study of determining an optimal
building insulation level, J. Clean. Prod. 162 (2017) 449–457, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.058.
[86] P. Ylm�en, K. Mj€ ornell, J. Berlin, J. Arfvidsson, The influence of secondary effects on
global warming and cost optimization of insulation in the building envelope, Build.
Environ. 118 (2017) 174–183, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.03.019.
[87] C. Baldassarri, S. Sala, A. Caverzan, M. Lamperti Tornaghi, Environmental and
spatial assessment for the ecodesign of a cladding system with embedded phase
change materials, Energy Build. 156 (2017) 374–389, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2017.09.011.
[88] A. Castell, K. Menoufi, A. de Gracia, L. Rinc� on, D. Boer, L.F. Cabeza, Life Cycle
Assessment of alveolar brick construction system incorporating phase change
materials (PCMs), Appl. Energy 101 (2013) 600–608, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2012.06.066.
[89] C. Lamnatou, F. Motte, G. Notton, D. Chemisana, C. Cristofari, Cumulative energy
demand and global warming potential of a building-integrated solar thermal
system with/without phase change material, J. Environ. Manag. 212 (2018)
301–310, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.027.
[90] K. Menoufi, A. Castell, M.M. Farid, D. Boer, L.F. Cabeza, Life Cycle Assessment of
experimental cubicles including PCM manufactured from natural resources
(esters): a theoretical study, Renew. Energy 51 (2013) 398–403, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2012.10.010.
[91] K. Menoufi, A. Castell, L. Navarro, G. P�erez, D. Boer, L.F. Cabeza, Evaluation of the
environmental impact of experimental cubicles using Life Cycle Assessment: a
highlight on the manufacturing phase, Appl. Energy 92 (2012) 534–544, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.020.
[92] J.A. No€ el, P.M. Allred, M.A. White, Life cycle assessment of two biologically
produced phase change materials and their related products, Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 20 (2015) 367–376, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0831-1.
[93] P. Sobol�ciak, H. Abdelrazeq, N.G. Ozerkan,
€ M. Ouederni, Z. N� ogellov�
a, M.
A. AlMaadeed, M. Karkri, I. Krupa, Heat transfer performance of paraffin wax
based phase change materials applicable in building industry, Appl. Therm. Eng.
107 (2016) 1313–1323, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.07.050.
[94] W. Kl€ opffer, M.A. Curran, How many case studies should we publish, if any? Int. J.
Life Cycle Assess. 19 (2014) 1–2, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0667-0.
[95] N. Pelletier, P. Tyedmers, An ecological economic critique of the use of market
information in life cycle assessment research, J. Ind. Ecol. 15 (2011) 342–354,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00337.x.
[96] S. Suh, Y. Yang, On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA, Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 19 (2014) 1179–1184, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0739-9.