Building and Environment 233 (2023) 110093

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

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

Carbon assessment of a wooden single-family building – A novel deep green

design and elaborating on assessment parameters
Bojana Petrović a, b, *, Ola Eriksson b, Xingxing Zhang a
a
Department of Energy Technology and Construction Engineering, Dalarna University, SE-79131, Falun, Sweden
b
Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, University of Gävle, SE-80176, Gävle, Sweden

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

Keywords: The aim of this study was to investigate how the carbon accounting of a wooden single-family house is affected
Biogenic carbon by (1) decreasing the carbon footprint by changes in building design, (2) differentiating biogenic carbon from
Greenhouse gas (GHG) fossil carbon and (3) including external benefits beyond the state-of-the-art system boundaries. The motivation of
Life cycle assessment (LCA)
exploring different system boundaries, improved building design and investigating benefits aside of system
Life cycle cost (LCC)
Wood
boundaries rely on the fact of having the “full” picture of GHG emissions of building products. Changes in
building design were analyzed by life cycle assessment (LCA) focusing on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, while
the costs were assessed by using lice cycle cost (LCC). The findings showed that by including positive and
negative emissions from the production phase for an improved building design within scenario 4 ‘Cradle to Gate
+ Biogenic Carbon + D module’ has the lowest embodied GHG emissions when compared to other approaches
with − 3.5 kg CO2e/m2/y50. Considering the impacts of the whole building, the lowest GHG emissions are within
the scenario 8 ‘Cradle to Grave + Biogenic Carbon + D module‘ for the improved building design with − 0.7 kg
CO2e/m2/y50. The results suggest that a change to sustainable alternatives for building components that makes
the whole building to be constructed by wood, could lead to significant reduction of GHG emissions compared to
conventional material choices. Economically, testing sustainable solutions, the highlighted results are the con­
struction costs that are almost double higher for CLT elements for the foundation compared to concrete.

1. Introduction
To fulfill the target from the Paris Agreement and limit global
warming below 2 ◦ C, the European Union (EU) needs to entirely
decarbonize its economy by 2050 [1]. To achieve the ambitious goal, it
is recommended to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least
50% by 2030 [2]. According to recent data, more than 36% of GHG
emissions in the EU belong to the building sector, therefore the transi­
tion towards net zero economy is needed [1]. Sweden has set up an
objective to mitigate GHG to net zero no later than 2045 [3]. To achieve
the target, some supplementary measures are promoted: raised net
removal in forests, verified emissions from other countries and biogenic
carbon storage [3].
The Swedish National Board of Housing, Planning and Building
(Boverket) introduced climate declarations for new buildings from 2022
[4]. The purpose of starting the regulations is to encourage manufac­
turers to produce low-carbon building materials. Further, Boverket
developed a database for the main building components being used on
the Swedish market. The database consists of generic climate data that
are set conservatively and includes main characteristics of a product [5].
When creating a list of building materials for a new building, this
database can be used for calculation of carbon emissions. As Sweden has
almost decarbonized the electricity supply, the emphasis in the future
should be on minimizing embodied carbon emissions within building
materials [6]. Boverket further proposed [4] that the biogenic carbon
storage in wooden building materials should be included separately in
the climate declaration, as additional environmental information.
Using wood as a construction material for buildings has increased
significantly in the Nordic building sector [7]. The advantage of using
wood in buildings rely on its ability to absorb and sequester carbon di­
oxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and thus reduce the CO2 level, pref­
erably with higher longevity of a product [8]. The CO2, sequestered in
bio-based materials and wood, is labelled biogenic carbon. When the
wood is combusted at the end-of-life, the sequestered carbon is released
into the air, thereby readjusting the CO2 level [8]. Thus, woods’ ability
to absorb and release CO2 from the air is often used as a strategy for

* Corresponding author. Department of Energy Technology and Construction Engineering, Dalarna University, SE-79131, Falun, Sweden.
E-mail addresses: bpv@du.se (B. Petrović), Ola.Eriksson@hig.se (O. Eriksson), xza@du.se (X. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110093
Received 27 November 2022; Received in revised form 18 January 2023; Accepted 9 February 2023
Available online 10 February 2023
0360-1323/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
B. Petrović et al.
mitigating the embodied GHG emissions of buildings.
However, to get an accurate value of the environmental impacts of
wood is still under development, due to its complexity [8]. Therefore, as
to quantify biogenic carbon uptake and release in wooden materials, two
different approaches are mostly used. The first approach, known as 0/0,
the carbon uptake is equal to carbon released at the end-of-life and wood
is considered as carbon neutral [8,9] and also state-of-the-art in life
cycle assessment (LCA). The second approach, known as − 1/+1 in­
cludes specific handling of biogenic carbon in the life cycle stages, where
during the product stage carbon uptake is referred to − 1 and during the
end-of-life the carbon release accounted as an equivalent +1. Further,
there is also a dynamic LCA method where timing of biogenic carbon
uptake and release is taken into consideration [8,9].
Currently, assessment of the biogenic carbon is getting more
attraction within the LCA society. Therefore, a new version of European
Standards was developed by including the biogenic carbon content [10].
According to that version, new environmental product declarations
(EPDs) for building materials should declare building life cycle stages
A1-A3 (production emissions), C1–C4 (end-of-life emissions) and D
module (external benefits beyond the system boundary) and consider
global warming potential GWP biogenic and GWP fossil separately. The
inclusion of biogenic carbon content in LCAs and EPDs is significant in
terms of overall estimation of carbon balance, considering its removal
and storage [11].
Resch et al. [12] advocate the importance of operation emissions of
buildings and benefits of biogenic carbon uptake in buildings for
reducing the global warming potential in the next 100 years, while the
end-of-life impacts will be neglected in a long run. Another study done
by Hart et al. [13] shows a 43% reduction in GHG impact for a wood
construction when compared to steel and concrete, likewise according to
the study [14] wood has 9–56% reduced impact compared to mineral
solutions. However, countries in Northern Europe (especially Sweden,
Norway and Finland) have built single family houses using wood as the
main construction material, with 85–95% of the total mass [15]. A
previous literature review of existing studies shows the lack of vari­
ability in LCA studies of wooden buildings [8]. Therefore, it is difficult to
explore the relationships between methodological choices and GHG
emissions. The research gap should be covered by focusing on biogenic
carbon accounting in LCAs, different types of detailed inventory data for
wooden buildings and increased transparency in LCA studies [8]. The
majority of previous studies considering the biogenic carbon approach
− 1/+1 within the system boundary “Incl. biogenic carbon + Cradle to
Gate with Options” only includes the product stage (A1-A3) as manda­
tory stages with other construction, process or use stage as additional
options. Further, released carbon emissions in the end-of-life stage
typically present low embodied GHG impacts in total and therefore they
were omitted [8]. Similarly, the study by Hoxha et al. [9] identifies that
32 studies which have used “Cradle to Gate with Options” approach,
covering the product stage and some also extended end-of -life stage
with or without assessing module D. It is concluded that there is a lack of
consistency due to various methods for biogenic carbon accounting,
hence the reliable comparable analysis in results look unfeasible [9].
Therefore, future studies would be more reliable to consider the whole
system boundary in order to avoid misleading results by covering only
the product stage [9] and also to add carbon release into account within
end-of-life stage in order to fulfill more realistic outcomes [8]. Addi­
tionally, the issue related to biogenic carbon accounting relies also on
the fact that there are plenty of EPDs and other databases that do not
properly consider this indicator. According to European Standards [16],
environmental assessments of building products include only life cycle
modules from A1-A3 in EPDs without declaration of the biogenic carbon
content [16]. In the recent report from World Green Building Council
(WGBC) [17], it was stressed out that carbon emissions occurring
beyond the system boundary, including reuse or recycle of building
materials should be considered in forthcoming updates to European
standards. Thus, it should be mandatory for EPDs to report D module
2
Building and Environment 233 (2023) 110093
together with other life cycle stages.
As buildings can last for minimum 50–100 years or even more, there
is a lack of studies considering 100 years lifetime. There is also no clear
evidence on how the biogenic approach was included in the case studies.
The buildings mostly analyzed also involving biogenic carbon are
multifamily buildings, while the single-family buildings are rarely re­
ported. There is also a lack of case studies exploring wooden based
buildings and materials in terms of carbon storage and the benefits after
its end-of-life expressed in D module. Further, regarding material
assessment there are limited findings regarding wooden foundation,
wooden roof, and low carbon solar photovoltaic (PV) panels. In the
literature, it can be noticed evident demand for environmental assess­
ments on wood-based materials due to its great advantage for carbon
storage, while on the other side its economic evaluation was also
accounted as of great importance. Further, there is a lack of previous
research based on low carbon roof system, therefore future studies
would need to include more sustainable roof solutions. Indeed, roof as
the large construction element could lead to significant environmental
impact if made by conventional materials (steel or concrete tiles),
therefore natural material such as wood could be taken into account and
conducted more in details. Hence, the limitations mentioned in the
previous studies were motivation for doing this study.
The economic performance of building components has a great role
in the building industry. It is found that initial construction costs are the
main contributors to total LCC (56%) [18], therefore, it is important to
investigate and compare construction costs of building materials and
installations.
The aim of the study is to elaborate carbon accounting through the
life cycle assessment (LCA) of a reference building and its improved
design by including biogenic carbon content into account and external
benefits beyond the system boundary. The life cycle cost (LCC) method
was additionally used for providing information about financial costs
with emphasis on construction costs of building products. According to
these goals three research questions were developed.
• How will building improvements change the overall climate impact
and costs of the building products?
• How can the biogenic carbon involved in the LCA change the overall
climate impact on building and product levels?
• How can the different system boundaries of LCA method influence
the decision-making processes in the built environment?
By answering these questions, this paper will provide new insights to
the understanding of sustainable solutions for future wooden single-
family houses located in Nordic countries.
2. Previous research
2.1. System boundaries and carbon assessment approaches
In terms of inclusion vs. exclusion of biogenic carbon, different
studies have applied various system boundaries such as: Cradle to Gate
with Options, Cradle to Grave excluding module D etc. Most of these
studies include embodied GHG investigation, while details regarding the
operational carbon was omitted. Data were normalized to kg CO2e/m2/y
based on the different building areas while the 50 years as the RSP was
mostly applied. In the study by Andersen et al. [8] only 2% of the sce­
narios in previous studies include biogenic carbon separately, while 98%
of the studies do not include in details biogenic carbon. Furthermore,
around 96% of the scenarios applied attributional LCA method, while
only 4% used consequential LCA. It can be also noticed in the study [8]
that results when using attributional LCA show high emissions, at
around 4.4 kg CO2e/m2 while the results achieved by consequential LCA
show lower emissions, at 2.6 kg CO2e/m2 mostly due to its potential to
include external benefits. The average embodied GHG emissions found
for single-family residential buildings is 4.7 kg CO2e/m2 for 50 RSP [8].
B. Petrović et al.
These results present significantly lower emissions than findings for the
same building category investigated by Röck et al. that are within the
range from 6.7 kg CO2e/m2 to 11.2 kg CO2e/m2 for the same RSP [19].
However, it can be also seen that 74% of the 226 scenarios do not show
the clear path of using biogenic carbon approach [8]. According to re­
sults based on different system boundaries, the lowest embodied GHG
emissions are found within the category “Incl. biogenic carbon + Cradle
to Gate with Options” with − 0.2 kg CO2e/m2/y for 50 RSP compared to
other approaches included in the study [8]. Negative embodied GHG is
achieved due to applied − 1/+1 approach excluding the end-of-life stage
in the analysis [8]. Furthermore, the study by Hoxha et al. [9] also
demonstrate that − 1/+1 approach can end up in negative GHG impacts
with notice of lack of accurate data for decision making purposes. Other
findings show that the system boundary “Incl. biogenic carbon + Cradle
to Grave excl. module D” have lower GHG emissions compared to the
system boundary “Excl. Biogenic carbon + Cradle to Grave excl. module
D”. The first category that includes biogenic carbon show 4.8 kg
CO2e/m2 on average, while the second category without biogenic carbon
approach presents 9.5 kg CO2e/m2 on average using 50 RSP. It is evident
that results by using biogenic carbon accounting, mostly applying
− 1/+1 approach show significant reduction of GHG emissions [8].
2.2. Carbon assessment results for wooden buildings
Wooden structures can store carbon emissions for a long time in their
structures, and this process named as “carbon sequestration” [20]
including removal of carbon dioxide from the air and creating “negative
emissions” [21]. Concrete that mostly consists of rock, cement, water
and some additives releases carbon emissions during the production
process, while during the use phase concrete can take up/absorb carbon
when oxygen from the air is reacting with calcium hydroxide, forming
calcium carbonate [21,22].
In the study by Andersen et al. [11], the results for concrete and cross
laminated timber (CLT) buildings were investigated with significant
difference in embodied GHG for the LCAs reference study period (RSP)
of 100 years and cradle to grave approach. For the concrete building,
materials account for 62% and 58% of the CO2 emissions, taking into
account baseline and biogenic scenarios. While for the CLT building,
materials have shown significant reduction, 2% and − 54% of embodied
GHG impacts for baseline and biogenic scenarios. The CLT building
presented negative scores in the biogenic scenario as the GWP bio factor
was included in the calculation, which automatically increased the
climate benefits by including biogenic carbon sequestered in the
building [11].
The results obtained from a Spanish single-family house based on
CLT construction have shown 34 kg CO2e/m2/y by considering 50 of RSP
[23]. The system boundary includes the construction phase, the use
phase, maintenance and repairs, annual energy and material consump­
tion until the demolition phase. The embodied GHG emissions from
building materials and construction activities are 7.8 kg CO2e/m2/y
[23]. The operational phase has the largest contribution in total envi­
ronmental impact, with 26.5 kg CO2e/m2/y, respectively [23].
The findings from a study in Sweden by Peñaloza et al. [24] show
significantly lower emissions considering biobased materials in build­
ings and buildings with a shorter lifetime have lower benefits when
replacing non biobased alternatives. Hence, the study elaborates dy­
namic LCA using GWP indicator and shows the climate benefits by
substituting mineral-based materials with biobased alternatives.
In the LCA overview of wooden CLT buildings [25], the results pre­
sented a wide span in terms of different classifications of different
studies. In the selected studies on CLT buildings, only one case was
found for a single family building, located in Malaysia [26], with
695–833 kg CO2e/m2 for 50 RSP, including Cradle to Grave (excl. B1,
B3–B7, C3–C4 and D1 modules) [25]. Majority of results were published
for multifamily buildings with 50 RSP and the overall climate impacts
range between 0.05 and 6.3 tCO2e/m2 floor area including different
3
Building and Environment 233 (2023) 110093
system boundaries, lifespans, regional climate and other relevant pa­
rameters [25]. In the selected case studies by Younis and Dodoo [25],
considering biogenic carbon had a strong influence on the results. Based
on their summary, CLT buildings with Cradle to Gate system boundary
using 0% (no storage carbon) and 100% (included carbon storage) have
a carbon footprint of 271 and 125 kg CO2e/m2. Furthermore, for Cradle
to Grave system boundary, using 0% and 100% carbon storage, results in
322 and 227 kg CO2e/m2 [25]. Another important finding is that reused
CLT was the most environmentally preferable alternative as it not only
reduces GHG emissions, but also supports Cradle to Cradle approach,
circularity in buildings [25].
2.3. Biobased construction materials
A significant reduction of carbon emissions from the building con­
struction sector could in the future be achieved through higher utiliza­
tion of biobased materials. Historically, wood as a construction material
was broadly applied in buildings [27]. According to previous studies,
timber in general and CLT as a wood construction material, have shown
large reduction of GHG impacts compared to concrete [28–30], even a
negative climate change impact [31]. Additionally, the alternative
suggested in the paper is that obsolete concrete can be reused, e.g., as
ballast in newly produced concrete [21]. From an economic perspective,
CLT material is considered more expensive than concrete. However, due
to structural properties there are significant advantages of using CLT
instead of concrete for flooring. The CLT elements can be constructed
efficiently and in short time, which results in shorter production time,
while the concrete slab needs a long manufacturing process [21] due to
drying process which is also energy consuming. Further advantages are
that a CLT element is a lighter material and weighs about 1/6 of con­
crete, thus, an easier construction can be achieved with reduced logistic
costs [21]. Even in the investigated scenario where concrete involve
carbon storage compared to wood that excludes carbon storage, wooden
materials are found as favorable solutions from an environmental
perspective [21]. It can be concluded from environmental point of view
that wood has a clear advantage over concrete, thus its can be also seen
that Sweden has a long tradition of sustainable forestry and great pos­
sibilities to use the wood as construction material [21]. If more buildings
are built with wooden frames in the future, the carbon storage will in­
crease and that will have direct impact on the reduction of climate
impact [21].
2.4. Embodied carbon in solar photovoltaic (PV) panels
Different countries provide different climate potential of the elec­
tricity mix and therefore the embodied carbon emissions from the pro­
duction process of solar PV panels in each country could significantly
vary. Following the study by Karaiskakis et al. [32] where different types
of PV systems were investigated, the embodied carbon intensity is in the
range of 159 kg CO2e/m2 to 199 kg CO2e/m2. Furthermore, in the study
[33], producers of solar PV panels display different embodied carbon
results. The estimated released emissions per m2 of solar PV panels are
investigated showing impact of 125 kg CO2 (Germany), 103 kg CO2
(USA), 17 kg CO2 (Brazil), 182 kg CO2 (China) and finally 82 kg CO2
(Japan) [33]. However, Brazil generated 83.7% of its electricity from
renewable sources in 2018. Therefore, the carbon emission amount is
lower compared to other countries mentioned in the paper [33].
Müller et al. [34] highlight the importance of the electricity mix in
the country where solar panels are installed. It can be concluded that the
highest values of GHG emission savings can be reached when the PV
systems are manufactured in low carbon countries and installed in
countries with carbon intensive electricity mix and great solar irradia­
tion [34–36].
Valuable results, investigated in the study [33], identify that energy
required to produce solar panels is 9.52 times higher than the energy
needed for recycling process. Thus, it is important to include recycled
B. Petrović et al.
Table 1
Data description for LCA and LCC.
components in the manufacturing process of solar panels [33]. More­
over, it was stated in the paper that in the recycling process of panels, up
to 58% of energy savings can be achieved compared to energy needed
for new panels. In other words, recycled panels could contribute 42% to
mitigating GHG emissions [33]. Likewise, according to Ref. [37], the
benefits of recycling glass and aluminum could lead to great reduction in
total life cycle emissions of PV panels.
Another way of reducing the embodied carbon emissions is to replace
traditional roofs with PV systems. In the study [38], buildings could
have installed integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) systems where PV mod­
ules are used instead of conventional roofing system. It is noticed that
proper installation of PV systems on roofs, can significantly reduce the
quantity of roof materials and associated emissions from material
manufacture. It is also stated that BIPV module do not damage the
building envelope when need to be removed. Due to dual purposes, the
integrated systems can provide cost and material savings [38,39].
Following the case study investigated in Spain for a single-family
house, it is also concluded that while the electricity become fully dec­
arbonized, installing PV panels would be the best environmental and
economic solution [23].
2.5. Economic performance of wooden buildings
In the study done by Lechon et al. [23] for a single-family house
based on CLT construction, the total costs are 41.21 €/m2 in 50 years
RSP, where 77% are the construction costs while the rest are operational
costs 23%. Within construction costs of the single-family house the most
expensive material is the CLT structure (23%). In a similar study, the
single-family house constructed with CLT and 50 years of RSP, the
building materials’ production contributes significantly, by 89% to the
total cost [26]. Silva et al. [40] identified that CLT can lead up to 30%
reduction in construction time, which consequently shows lower labor
costs. Additionally, the timing period for construction per floor of CLT
material could be up to 4 days, compared to 21 days for concrete floor
4
Building and Environment 233 (2023) 110093
[41]. Further, in the study [42], it is noted that CLT can be used for both
single and multistorey buildings where speed construction might reduce
costs, while on the other side the planning phase would be more time
consuming. Therefore, understanding CLT as manufactured wood ma­
terial and as a construction material will lead to more efficient decision
process on how to use the benefits of its properties [42].
3. Methodology and case study
3.1. Methodology
The LCA method is used for calculation of released CO2e emissions
for building materials and installations, while the carbon compensation
method is proposed by using biogenic carbon accounting. Furthermore,
the LCC was conducted in line with LCA for both reference and improved
building, using the software One Click LCA [43]. A sensitivity analysis
with comparative analysis and interpretation of results was made in MS
Excel. In line with a previous study [44], both 50 and 100 RSPs were
applied. The most common RSP of 50 years mentioned in previous work
was used as benchmark, while 100 RSP was used since wooden houses in
Sweden and other Nordic countries could last for an even longer period,
therefore the difference in GHG emissions could be of great interest. The
inventory data for materials and energy calculations were based on
previous studies [44,45], and the results were updated by the most
recent data on material manufacturing localization target (where
emissions from electricity used in manufacturing are adjusted to
represent the power source mix in the chosen location using energy grid
and other data) based on Boverket with estimated Swedish electricity
mix from year 2021 [43].
Selected building materials were mostly EPDs from Sweden and
Norway, with a minority of EPDs from other EU countries. However, due
to the lack of EPDs on energy systems, the data were based on the
generic data provided by the software. The biogenic carbon content
within the database of One Click LCA software was provided as a value
B. Petrović et al. Building and Environment 233 (2023) 110093

6. ‘Cradle to Grave + Biogenic carbon’

7. ‘Cradle to Grave + D module’
8. ‘Cradle to Grave + Biogenic carbon + D module’

Considering biogenic carbon accounting, the case study applies a

− 1/+1 approach by involving both carbon uptake during production
phase of wood products and carbon release during its end-of-life phase.

3.2. Case study building

The building model used in this paper is Dalarnas Villa [44,45], a

single-family house located in Dalarna region in Sweden built in 2019,
shown in Fig. 1. The house is used as a reference building with total gross
floor area of 180 m2. The reference building envelope consists of a
wooden framework and wood panel facade including cellulose insu­
Fig. 1. Building model “Dalarnas Villa” [48]. lation for external walls and for the roof, wood fiber insulation for in­
ternal walls and foundation based on concrete. Windows are triple
obtained from EPDs, else if the value was not declared the software glazed and wooden-aluminum framed. The roof is made of steel, while
provided close estimation explained in the document [46]. The doors are wood/glass for external use and wood for internal use. Energy
end-of-life method chosen is based on default option, where material systems applied in the building are solar PV panels, exhaust ventilation
type-specific scenarios were used for the end-of-life impacts [47]. system and ground source heat pump. The inventory data can be seen in
Description of LCA and LCC methods within different system boundaries detail in a previous study [45]. Further, the operational energy use was
are shown in Table 1. calculated within TMF Energy program based on building physics,
Different LCA approaches are applied for reference and improved climate, heating and ventilation systems and occupancy [45]. These
building design scenarios for 50 and 100 years RSP. data were transferred in One Click LCA for further estimation of oper­
ation carbon emissions.
1. ‘Cradle to Gate’ The reference building was compared with improved design case by
2. ‘Cradle to Gate + Biogenic carbon’ substituting the high embodied materials with sustainable choices. The
3. ‘Cradle to Gate + D module’ comparable analysis in the result section was conducted for reference vs.
4. ‘Cradle to Gate + Biogenic carbon + D module’ improved building design, in terms of GHG emissions, based on fossil
5. ‘Cradle to Grave’ and biogenic carbon emissions provided in Table 2.
The further comparable analysis was done in terms of LCC. The

Table 2
Building materials emissions: GWP fossil and GWP biogenic.

Building materials Fossil Carbon: Production phase (released kg Fossil carbon: End of life phase (released kg Biogenic Carbon (uptake kg Database
CO2e) emissions CO2e) emissions CO2e) emissions

Concrete (foundation) 5797 143 0 EPD Norway

CLT (foundation) 1188 1286 − 16611 EPD Sweden
Wood framework 46 1.05 − 602 EPD Norway
Wood panel 38 0.86 − 494 EPD Norway
CLT (internal 211 291 − 3877 EPD Sweden
components)
Thermo-wood 227 192 − 2669 EPD Estonia
(balcony)
Flooring (parquet) 521 248 − 3611 EPD Norway
Cellulose insulation 109 8.73 − 4407 EPD Austria
Wood fiber insulation 424 0.86 − 445 EPD Germany
EPS insulation 1090 19 0 EPD Sweden
(foundation)
Gypsum 2860 43.09 0 EPD Sweden, EPD
Norway
Windows triple glazed 2893 73.42 − 777 EPD Norway
Doors (internal/ 1342 95.13 − 1248 EPD Norway
external)
Roof (steel) 1754 4.71 0 EPD Finland
Roof (wood) 1754 222 − 2728 EPD Norway
Plastic details 339 125 0 EPD Norway, EPD
France
Solar PV system from 5766 24 0 Generic data, EU
EU
Solar PV system from 560 0 0 Midsummar AB
Sweden Sweden
Heat pump system 604 1.75 0 Generic data,
Germany
Ventilation system 623 25 0 Generic data, Sweden
Water supply piping 2789 5.22 0 EPD Norway
system
Underfloor heating 1206 720 0 EPD Norway
system
Electricity cables 471 0.55 0 Generic data, Sweden

5
B. Petrović et al.
Fig. 2. GHG impacts due to different scenarios for 50 RSP.
purpose of using this house is to investigate differences by changing
various materials that contributed in large share to total emissions.
Motivation for introducing the improved building design rely on our
previous findings where few materials, such as concrete installed only
for the foundation, roof made by steel and PV panels produced with EU
electricity mix contributed as a large share of embodied carbon in total
results. Therefore, to mitigate carbon impacts, we introduced biogenic
carbon and included different methodological aspects. Further, cost
estimation was included for testing economic sustainability aspect.
Therefore, to decrease the embodied carbon footprint, the improved
building design has substituted concrete slab for CLT elements and roof
made by steel with thermo-wood construction. Solar PV panels pro­
duced in Europe are replaced with panels produced in Sweden, that
account for around 90% decrease in embodied carbon.
4. Results
In this section, the results for the reference building and the
improved building design are presented. The results are normalized and
presented in kg CO2e/m2/y in Figs. 2 and 3 by taking into account 50
and 100 RSPs for different system boundaries applied for reference vs.
improved cases. Further results are presenting the LCC analysis covering
cradle-to-grave. Finally, there are results on the sensitivity of building
materials and installations in terms of emissions and costs for both
buildings.
Tables 3–4 present the LCA results of the reference building and the
improved building. The 2 cases (original and improved designs) have
been investigated in 8 scenarios for two RSP (50/100 years). This means
there are 32 final results on GWP, depicted in Figs. 2 and 3. There is also
6
Building and Environment 233 (2023) 110093
a break-down of these GWP results into building components (Figs. 4
and 5) as well as break-down of construction costs into building com­
ponents for the two cases (Fig. 6).
4.1. GHG emissions including different system boundaries
Figs. 2 and 3 present GHG impacts for reference vs. improved
building design applying different system boundaries for 50 and 100
RSPs. It can be pointed out that the improved building design shows
significantly lower embodied GHG emissions compared to the reference
building for 50 and 100 RSPs for all scenarios, respectively. The results
on Fig. 2 show that including emissions from products’ level in scenario
1 and buildings’ level in scenario 5 without considering biogenic carbon
and external benefits from D module led to the highest total GHG
emissions. However, including the negative carbon within wood mate­
rials using biogenic accounting and external benefits derived from sec­
ond used products present the best outcome on products’ level in
scenario 4 for improved building with − 3.5 kg CO2e/m2/y50, respec­
tively. Considering the impacts on buildings’ level, the lowest GHG
emissions are within scenario 8 with − 0.7 kg CO2e/m2/y50, mainly due
to higher negative emissions derived from wooden materials along the
whole life span of the building. Another reason behind the overall lower
emissions for the improved building design outcome is based on high
content of biogenic carbon within wooden materials that surpasses
benefits considered in D module for scenarios 2 and 6 compared to
scenarios 3 and 7. Fig. 3, presenting emissions for a period of 100 years,
does not show negative emissions on a buildings’ level, mainly due to
higher replacement rate of solar panels during the long lifespan of a
building.
B. Petrović et al. Building and Environment 233 (2023) 110093

Fig. 3. GHG impacts due to different scenarios for 100 RSP.

Table 3 Table 4
LCA results for 50 RSP presented in kg CO2e. LCA results for 100 RSP presented in kg CO2e.
Life cycle stages: Reference building Improved building Life cycle stages: Reference building Improved building

Production stage (A1-A3) 29110 19295 Production stage (A1-A3) 29110 19295
Construction stage (A4-A5) 4575 4581 Construction stage (A4-A5) 4575 4581
Maintenance/Replacement (B1–B5) 9216 4010 Maintenance/Replacement (B1–B5) 34119 16913
Operational energy use (B6) 12178 12178 Operational energy use (B6) 24357 24357
Operational water use (B7) 3000 3000 Operational water use (B7) 6000 6000
End-of-life stage (C1–C4) 2022 3382 End-of-life stage (C1–C4) 2022 3359
Total: 60102 46446 Total: 100184 74505

Biogenic Carbon − 18130 − 37469 Biogenic Carbon − 18130 − 37469

D module − 8216 − 15216 D module − 8216 − 15216

Taking into account different RSPs, it can be pointed out that
considering improved building scenarios involving biogenic carbon and
D module, 50 RSP present significantly lower total emissions compared
to 100 RSP. The reason behind these results relies on the fact that
wooden choices provide greater environmental performance and rise
the amount of negative GHG emissions. However, decreased impact
when applying cradle-to-gate scenarios (1–4) are due to that only the
material assessment is taken into evaluation, meaning that biogenic
carbon or benefits after the service life of products will show signifi­
cantly reduced emissions compared with whole life cycle approach
where the replacement rate of some materials will increase the total
amount of released GHG emissions. Therefore, this study presents a
complete analysis by adding other life cycle stages and covering the
cradle-to-grave approach.

7
B. Petrović et al.
Fig. 4. Material assessment including D module.
4.2. Embodied GHG impacts and cost estimation of building products
Figs. 4 and 5 present embodied GHG emissions, expressed in kg
CO2e/m2, from the production stage of building materials and in­
stallations for reference vs. improved building design considering. It can
be seen that evaluation of biogenic carbon and additional benefits
expressed in negative values provide better view on different building
products. By substituting the materials with a high carbon footprint to
alternatives with lower CO2 emissions, embodied carbon will be
significantly reduced. It can be noticed that wooden materials (such as
CLT, wood for framework and facade, thermo-wood, wooden roof,
parquet, cellulose insulation and wood fiber insulation) show the lowest
positive (released) emissions during their production process. Addi­
tionally, wooden products present negative emissions that are stored
during its service life. Further, these products show benefits that are
considered after the end-of-life when the second “life” is considered. It
can be noticed that biogenic carbon stored in wooden materials
including external impacts from D module can significantly reduce
embodied carbon. Therefore, substituting concrete foundation with CLT
elements, metal roof with wooden structure and solar PV panels pro­
duced in EU with the panels produced in Sweden will lead to extremely
low embodied carbon emissions. Comparing insulation materials, it is
evident that cellulose insulation and wood fiber insulation are the best
solutions to reduce emissions.
By comparing the results obtained in Fig. 6, it can be also noted that
sometimes wooden materials are not always cost-efficient solutions as
8
Building and Environment 233 (2023) 110093
the prices on the market can differ. It can be noticed that choosing CLT
structure for foundation instead of concrete will increase costs signifi­
cantly. Roof steel is more expensive than wooden construction, while PV
panels production costs, by comparing that from Sweden and EU, are
negligible. However, CLT elements is a lighter material than a concrete
slab, which has faster production time and consequentially reduced lo­
gistic costs. This could be a profitable solution in the long run [21].
Furthermore, even the concrete has more economic benefits that CLT,
the important factor to consider is variation of prices on the market
dependent on various economic indicators.
Nevertheless, each investigation of environmental impacts and eco­
nomic solutions of building materials and installations will provide
worthwhile information for decision makers in building industry located
in cold climate.
5. Discussion
5.1. Benchmarking overall results with previous studies
In line with our study, Andersen et al. [8] explored wooden buildings
and identified that the embodied GHG emissions within category ‘Incl.
biogenic carbon + Cradle to Gate with Options’ have the lowest values
compared to other approaches in their study where the average value is
− 0.2 kg CO2e/m2/a50. Further their results have shown that the scenario
‘Incl. biogenic carbon + Cradle to Grave excl. module D’ results are in
average 4.8 kg CO2e/m2/a50, compared to our improved building design
B. Petrović et al.
Fig. 5. Material assessment excluding D module.
that significantly reduce the impacts to 1.0 kg CO2e/m2/a50 for scenario
6. Other findings in Andersen et al. [8] within the scenario ‘Excl.
biogenic carbon + Cradle to Grave excl. module D’ are in large share of
embodied GHG emissions, on average 9.5 kg CO2e/m2/a50, compared to
our improved building design presenting 5.2 kg CO2e/m2/a50 for sce­
nario 5. In their study, they summarized different studies including
various wooden based building types, building cases, building areas,
regions, LCI modeling, LCA approaches etc. Thus, the average embodied
GHG emissions for their study present 4.7 kg CO2e/m2/a50 for the
category ‘single-family house’, while the findings in our study shown the
lowest emissions for improved building design with average value of 0.8
kg CO2e/m2/a50. The results in their study [8] do not include B6 and B7
modules, therefore the complete benchmark analysis was not possible to
conduct. Expended system boundaries including module D and biogenic
carbon can have a significant contribution to the “real” value of a
building product. The main reason of including different scenarios
provide different perspective on inclusion/exclusion of biogenic carbon
stored in wooden building materials and external benefits explored
during recycling/reusing processes of building products. The second­
hand products can highly extend the service life of products and at the
same time decrease and provide negative emissions in total accounting.
If a wooden building is built with reused building materials the
embodied carbon will be significantly lower compared to a building
based on new produced materials. Therefore, there is also high impor­
tance on the RSP of secondhand products. In order to have full picture of
all carbon flows for a wooden building, the 100 RSP would be a good
9
Building and Environment 233 (2023) 110093
reference as in general wooden houses can least even longer.
5.2. Wooden foundation and benefits of using wood as a material
One of the assumptions of having remarkably lower impacts
comparing to Andersen et al. [8] is that in our study both reference and
improved cases are wooden constructions, while specifically, the
improved case is completely made by wood, even the foundation, what
is rarely found in previous work. In most cases, the foundation is made
by reinforced concrete that leads to very high embodied carbon during
its lifetime. However, another recently built wooden single-family house
in Sweden is villa zero [49] that represents carbon neutral concept. The
specific novelty of this house is wooden foundation made by CLT ele­
ments. As there is a great debate on having wooden structure in the
foundation, the company [50] that built this house will further inves­
tigate the moisture content in wooden walls, ceiling, and the foundation.
In Swedish comparative study conducted by Hassan et al. [21], CLT
flooring and concrete slab flooring were analyzed in terms of structure,
economic and environmental impact. The study shows significant
reduction in GHG emissions of CLT flooring and its ability to store car­
bon is higher that the capacity of concrete storage. However, the
reduction of embodied carbon within foundation could be achieved by
replacing ordinary concrete with green alternative. However, consid­
ering wooden based materials the biogenic accounting play vital role,
especially if the material has long service life and if the product is
recycled or reused. Due to climate emergency and resource scarcity, the
B. Petrović et al.
Fig. 6. Cost estimation: SEK per m2 for building products.
imperative in the building sector is to find sustainable solutions that will
compensate released emissions during the production processes where
the intensive energy is needed. Therefore, the substitution process to­
wards low carbon alternatives is crucial. One of favorable solutions is to
shift towards wooden based alternatives and presenting the real value of
a product and showing the potential of a building as a “carbon sink”. It
should be also mentioned from energy carrier perspective, that supply­
ing Dalarnas Villa house with Swedish electricity mix decreases around
88% operational carbon compared to European driven electricity.
5.3. Advantage of using CLT
The results of study done by Andersen et al. [11] where they
compared wooden building and concrete building including biogenic
carbon in their assessment, show the potential benefits by using CLT as
the construction material. They concluded that increased use of CLT in
new buildings is a good solution for decrease in GHG impacts per m2.
Likewise, as CLT is a relatively new construction material, for further
mitigation of climate impacts the technological solutions for fire pro­
tection and noise transportation should be developed [11]. Considering
these factors CLT will be more desirable structural material in future
buildings. In the study by Häfliger et al. [51], wood building materials
based on EPDs have shown biogenic carbon as negative emissions for
(A1-A3) within system boundary (Cradle to Gate), moreover, carbon
release was also considered at the disposal phase (C) and wood incin­
eration emissions from module D. The benefits coming from module D
for wooden based materials have shown relatively low climate impacts
on a building level [51]. In the study [52], the comparable analysis of
mass timber, and concrete and steel as building materials have shown
that mass timber decreases construction phase emissions by 69%. They
also estimated that replacing wood for conventional building materials
10
Building and Environment 233 (2023) 110093
in half of new buildings will provide 9% reduction of GHG emissions and
keep the global warming below 1.5 ◦ C. By choosing sustainable alter­
native materials that reduce the climate impacts can influence signifi­
cant contribution to the ambitious 2030 targets without large changes to
consumption or policy [52]. Cabeza et al. [53] identified great differ­
ence in wood and concrete materials, by concluding that timber needs
special attention in the embodied carbon dataset. Carbon emissions
stored in biomass product life can be taken into consideration as
“sequestered carbon” [53], also depending on the study approach,
embodied carbon can be seen as negative [54].
5.4. Future research: clarification and transparency of LCA life cycle
substages
According to limited access to detailed LCA in previous studies, the
future research in wooden buildings could discover different modules
within the “cradle to grave” system boundary, specially within B stage
when it comes to use, repair, maintenance, and refurbishment of
building products in a long run. It is a challenge to calculate and esti­
mate these emissions as they mostly depend on customer preferences
and materials nature, while generic estimations in percentage could be
an option for the coming future. As well going into deeper analysis of
replacing conventional materials into more sustainable alternatives will
mitigate the climate impacts on a broad level. Furthermore, in the future
the whole LCA will be mandatory in the building sector including all
substages and not only aggregated modules, therefore it would be
beneficial to start with its investigation and estimation. Further, to
provide more actual value of negative emissions and adapting conse­
quential LCA method based on real case studies will provide more
knowledge on biogenic timing flow of wooden products. However,
elaborating research including climate impacts from reusing and recy­
cling processes could be more developed and applied in different
building types.
6. Conclusion
This paper presents LCA of a reference building vs. its improved
building design in terms of GHG emissions and financial costs, expressed
in CO2e and SEK. The analyzed GHG emissions between different sce­
narios for reference and improved building design show great differ­
ence. The lowest amount of GHG emissions was found for the scenario 4
′
Cradle to Gate + Biogenic Carbon + D module’ for improved building
design, by considering only material assessment in the production stage
and its carbon storage together with external benefits after its the end-of-
life. The scenarios that present negative GHG emissions in total outcome
significantly rely on wooden building materials that are recognized as a
carbon storage during its service life. It can be concluded from our re­
sults that inclusion of biogenic carbon accounting and external benefits
after the end-of-life of building products can result in significant
reduction of GHG emissions. Findings in our study shown “real” value of
using wooden based materials as the main construction materials for a
building. Concluding our results, CLT elements for the foundation,
wooden roof, solar PV panels manufactured in Sweden and other fol­
lowed wooden base materials present very low final embodied GHG, in
some cases even negative embodied GHG emissions. However, it can be
noticed that sometimes low carbon materials are not the best profitable
solutions. In case of foundation, CLT could cost even double more than
concrete slabs, while on the other side, easier construction and light
elements will reduce logistic costs and looked as a better solution in a
long run.
By summarizing our study, it can be pointed out that wood-based
solutions, including its great advantage of carbon storage and
increased use of them after the end-of-life, could be seen as the winning
scenario for mitigating climate in the building sector. Inclusion of
biogenic carbon will support/incentivize the use of wooden-based ma­
terials [4]. Hence, the broad analysis involving Cradle to Grave scenario
B. Petrović et al.
for a whole building would provide complete “picture” of the flow of
GHG emissions. Different scenarios will influence future decision
makers to include biogenic carbon and benefits from D module in their
assessment for having more accurate outcome of carbon accounting.
Furthermore, presenting and following costs would give larger
perspective for decision makers in built environment.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Bojana Petrović: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original
draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Software, Resources,
Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptu­
alization. Ola Eriksson: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original
draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Methodology, Investiga­
tion, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Xingxing Zhang: Writing –
review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation,
Supervision, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank for the support from the insurance
company Dalarnas Försäkringsbolag as the financer of the project
Dalarnas Villa. The authors would also like to give special thanks for
knowledge regarding the wooden foundation from the company Fis­
karhedenvillan AB – house manufacturer and supplier company that
built villa Zero known as carbon neutral single-family house. Addi­
tionally, we are grateful for the support and knowledge regarding the
solar PV panels from Midsummer AB manufacturing company from
Sweden that is used in the study.
References
[1] K. Kruit, J. Vendrik, P.v. Berkel, F.v. d. Poll, F. Rooijers, Zero Carbon Buildings
2050; Summary Report, CE Delft, 2020.
[2] 2021 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction; towards a Zero-
Emissions, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector, United
Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, 2021.
[3] Sweden’s Long-Term Strategy for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2020
[Online]. Available: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/LTS1_Sweden.
pdf. Accessed 24 2 2022.
[4] Boverket, in: Regulation on Climate Declarations for Buildings; Proposal for a
Roadmap and Limit Values, 2020 [Online]. Available: https://www.boverket.se/gl
obalassets/publikationer/dokument/2020/regulation-on-climate-declaration
s-for-buildings.pdf. Accessed 4 June 2021.
[5] Boverket, in: Climate Database from Boverket, 2022 [Online]. Available: https
://www.boverket.se/en/start/building-in-sweden/developer/rfq-documentation/
climate-declaration/climate-database/. Accessed 5 April 2022.
[6] R.R. Villegas, Doctoral Thesis: Energy Efficient Renovation in a Life Cycle
Perspective- A Case Study of a Swedish Multifamily-Building, Gävle University
Press, 2021.
[7] A.V. Jensen, N. Craig, Wood in Construction - 25 Cases of Nordic Good Practice,
Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2019.
[8] C.E. Andersen, F.N. Rasmussen, G. Habert, H. Birgisdottir, Embodied GHG
emissions of wooden buildings - challenges of biogenic carbon accounting in
current LCA methods, Front. Built Environ. 7 (2021).
[9] E. Hoxha, A. Passer, M.R.M. Saade, D. Trigaux, A. Shuttleworth, F. Pittau,
K. Allacker, G. Habert, Biogenic carbon in buildings: a critical overview of LCA
methods, Buildings and Cities 1 (1) (2020) 504–524.
[10] CEN, EN 15804:2012+A2:2019 - Sustainability of Construction Works -
Environmental Product Declarations - Core Rules for the Product Category of
Construction Products, 2019.
11
Building and Environment 233 (2023) 110093
[11] J.H. Andersen, N.L. Rasmussen, M.W. Ryberg, Comparative life cycle assessment of
cross laminated timber building and concrete building with special focus on
biogenic carbon, Energy Build. 254 (2022), 111604.
[12] E. Resch, I. Andresen, F. Cherubini, H. Brattebø, Estimating dynamic climate
change effects of material use in buildings—timing, uncertainty, and emission
sources, Build. Environ. 187 (2021), 107399.
[13] J. Hart, B. D’Amico, F. Pomponi, Whole-life embodied carbon in multistory
buildings: steel, concrete and timber structures, J. Ind. Ecol. 25 (2021) 403–418.
[14] A. Hafner, S. Schäfer, Comparative LCA study of different timber and mineral
buildings and calculation method for substitution factors on building level,
J. Clean. Prod. 167 (2017) 630–642.
[15] Forest Europe, State of Europe, s Forests, 2015.
[16] CEN, EN 15978 - Sustainability of Construction Works - Assessment of
Environmental Performance of Buildings - Calculation Method, CEN – European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2012.
[17] A. Nugent, C.M. Owen, L. Pallares, S. Richardson, M. Rowland, World Green
Building Council: EU Policy Whole Life Carbon Roadmap, WGBC, 2022.
[18] E. Sterner, Green Procurement of Buildings: Estimation of Environmental Impact
and Life-Cycle Cost, PhD Thesis, Lulea: Lulea University of Technology, Sweden,
2002.
[19] M. Röck, M.R.M. Saadeb, M. Balouktsi, F.N. Rasmussen, H. Birgisdottir,
R. Frischknecht, G. Habert, T. Lützkendorf, A. Passer, Embodied GHG emissions of
buildings – the hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation, Appl.
Energy 258 (2020), 114107.
[20] R. Sedjo, B. Sohngen, Carbon sequestration in forests and soils, Annu. Rev. Res.
Econ. 4 (2012) 127–144.
[21] O.A. Hassan, F. Öberg, E. Gezelius, Cross-laminated timber flooring and concrete
slab flooring: a comparative study of structural design, economic and
environmental consequences, J. Build. Eng. 26 (2019), 100881.
[22] E. Possan, W.A. Thomaz, G.A. Aleandri, E.F. Felix, A.C. Santos, CO2 uptake
potential due to concrete carbonation: a case study, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 6
(2017) 147–161.
[23] Y. Lechon, C. De la Rúa, J.I. Lechón, Environmental footprint and life cycle costing
of a family house built on CLT structure. Analysis of hotspots and improvement
measures, J. Build. Eng. 39 (2021), 102239.
[24] D. Peñaloza, M. Erlandsson, A. Falk, Exploring the climate impact effects of
increased use of bio-based materials in buildings, Construct. Build. Mater. 125
(2016) 219–226.
[25] A. Younis, A. Dodoo, Cross-laminated timber for building construction: a life-cycle-
assessment overview, J. Build. Eng. 52 (2022), 104482.
[26] A.T. Balasbaneh, W. Sher, Comparative sustainability evaluation of two engineered
wood-based construction materials: life cycle analysis of CLT versus GLT, Build.
Environ. 204 (2021), 108112.
[27] R. Brandner, G. Flatscher, A. Ringhofer, G. Schickhofer, A. Thiel, Cross laminated
timber (CLT): overview and development, Eur. J. Wood and Wood Prod. 74 (3)
(2016) 331–351.
[28] A. Dodoo, L. Gustavsson, R. Sathre, Lifecycle carbon implications of conventional
and low-energy multi-storey timber building systems, Energy Build. 82 (2014)
194–210.
[29] N. Lolli, S.M. Fufa, M.K. Wiik, An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from CLT
and glulam in two residential nearly zero energy buildings, Wood Mater. Sci. Eng.
14 (5) (2019) 342–354.
[30] F. Pierobon, M. Huang, K. Simonen, I. Ganguly, Environmental benefits of using
hybrid CLT structure in midrise non-residential construction: an LCA based
comparative case study in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, J. Build. Eng. 26 (2019),
100862.
[31] J.L. Skullestad, R.A. Bohne, J. Lohne, High-rise timber buildings as a climate
change mitigation measure – a comparative LCA of structural system alternatives,
Energy Proc. 96 (2016) 112–123.
[32] A. Karaiskakis, E. Gazis, G. Harrison, Energy and carbon analysis of photovoltaic
systems in the UK, in: 28th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and
Exhibition, 2013. Paris.
[33] G. Yıldız, B. Çalış, A.E. Gürel, İ. Ceylan, Investigation of life cycle CO2 emissions of
the polycrystalline and cadmium telluride PV panels, Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit.
Manag. 14 (2020), 100343.
[34] A. Müller, L. Friedrich, C. Reichel, S. Herceg, M. Mittag, D.H. Neuhaus,
A comparative life cycle assessment of silicon PV modules: impact of module
design, manufacturing location and inventory, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cell. 230
(2021), 111277.
[35] L.S. Luján, N. Espinosa, J. Abad, A. Urbina, The greenest decision on photovoltaic
system allocation, Renew. Energy 101 (2017) 1348–1356.
[36] K. Kawajiri, Y. Genchi, The right place for the right job in the photovoltaic life
cycle, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (13) (2012) 7415–7421.
[37] I.B.P. Fraunhofer, Executive Summary: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Screening of
the Maltha Recycling Process for Si-PV Modules, Department Life Cycle
Engineering (GaBi), 2012.
[38] T.F. Kristjansdottir, C.S. Good, M.R. Inman, R.D. Schlanbusch, I. Andresen,
Embodied greenhouse gas emissions from PV systems in Norwegian residential
Zero Emission Pilot Buildings, Sol. Energy 133 (2016) 155–171.
[39] B.P. Jelle, C. Breivik, H.D. Røkenes, Building integrated photovoltaic products: a
state-of-the-art review and future research opportunities, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol.
Cell. 100 (2012) 69–96.
[40] C.V. Silva, J.M. Branco, P.B. Lourenco, A project contribution to the development
of sustainable multistorey timber buildings, in: Portugal Sb13 - Contribution of
Sustainable Building to Meet Eu 20 20 20 Targets, Guimarães, 2013, pp. 379–386.
B. Petrović et al.
[41] M.F.L. Mallo, O. Espinoza, Awareness, perceptions and willingness to adopt Cross-
Laminated Timber by the architecture community in the United States, J. Clean.
Prod. 94 (2015) 198–210.
[42] J. Ahvenainen, H.S. Sousa, Multistorey building made of CLT: how to design it
right?, in: Seminário: “Construir Em Madeira” Universidade do Minho, Portugal,
2016, pp. 95–118.
[43] One Click LCA [Online]. Available:, 2015 www.oneclicklca.com https://www.onec
licklca.com/. Accessed 30 3 2022.
[44] B. Petrović, X. Zhang, O. Eriksson, M. Wallhagen, Life cycle cost analysis of a
single-family house in Sweden, Buildings 11 (5) (2021) 215.
[45] B. Petrovic, J.A. Myhren, X. Zhang, M. Wallhagen, O. Eriksson, Life cycle
assessment of a wooden single-family house in Sweden, Appl. Energy 251 (2019),
113253.
[46] One Click LCA, in: Biogenic Carbon, 2022 [Online]. Available: https://oneclicklca.
zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360015036640-Biogenic-Carbon. Accessed 2
August 2022.
[47] One Click LCA, User-adjustable end of life modelling options [Online]. Available:
https://oneclicklca.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360015227480. Accessed 2
September 2022.
12
Building and Environment 233 (2023) 110093
[48] Dalarnas Försäkringar, in: Bakgrund, Syfte & Mål, 2022 [Online]. Available: https
://www.lansforsakringar.se/dalarna/privat/om-oss/dalarnas-villa/. Accessed
2021.
[49] Fiskarhedenvillan, in: The World’s First Carbon Neutral House Is Located in
Sweden, 2022 [Online]. Available: https://fiskarhedenvillan.se/press/the-worlds
-first-carbon-neutral-house-is-located-in-sweden/. Accessed 8 August 2022.
[50] Fiskarhedenvillan, in: Nu Är Den Omtalade Trägrunden För Villazero Lagd, 2022
[Online]. Available: https://fiskarhedenvillan.se/press/nu-ar-den-omtalade-t
ragrunden-for-villazero-lagd/. Accessed 2 September 2022.
[51] I.F. Häfliger, V. John, A. Passer, S. Lasvaux, E. Hoxha, M.R.M. Saade, G. Habert,
Buildings environmental impacts’ sensitivity related to LCA modelling choices of
construction materials, J. Clean. Prod. 156 (2017) 805–816.
[52] A. Himes, G. Busby, Wood buildings as a climate solution, Dev. Built Environ. 4
(2020), 100030.
[53] L.F. Cabeza, L. Boquera, M. Chàfer, D. Vérez, Embodied energy and embodied
carbon of structural building materials: worldwide progress and barriers through
literature map analysis, Energy Build. 231 (2021), 110612.
[54] International Energy Agency (IEA), EBC Programme, Evaluation of Embodied Energy
and CO2 Emissions for Building Construction. Subtask 1: Basics, Actors and Concepts,
Institute for Building Environment and Energy, 2016.