sustainability

Article
Delivering Sustainable Housing through Material Choice
Cameron Taylor 1 , Krishanu Roy 2, * , Aflah Alamsah Dani 2 , James B. P. Lim 1,2 , Karnika De Silva 3
and Mark Jones 4

1 Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland,

Auckland 1010, New Zealand
2 School of Engineering, The University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand
3 NZ Product Accelerator, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand
4 NZ Product Accelerator, Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, The University of Auckland,
Auckland 1023, New Zealand
* Correspondence: krishanu.roy@waikato.ac.nz

Abstract: Increasing importance is being placed on sustainability worldwide to limit climate change’s
effects. In New Zealand, a sizeable increase in demand for housing is driving a residential construc-
tion boom, with new dwelling consents increasing yearly for the last decade. The New Zealand
Government’s commitment to sustainability has become legislation through the Climate Change
Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019. Therefore, the next stage is how the construction
industry can limit and reduce its carbon emissions through one of the strategies, namely material
choice. This study was intended to examine the influence of various building materials on climate
change and to identify how more sustainable home construction and design in New Zealand may
contribute to the government’s 2050 emissions reduction targets. A life-cycle assessment (LCA) was
used in this study to investigate the global warming potential (GWP) produced by five case study
houses and various material options for building envelope components. The study focused on the
environmental impact of materials with high usage in industry and potential new materials that have
shown an ability to conform to the New Zealand Building Code standards. It was found that case
study House 1 (with timber flooring founded on senton piles with concrete footings, a timber frame,
plywood wall cladding, and metal roof cladding) and House 2 (with a concrete waffle slab, a light
steel frame, masonry wall cladding, and metal roof cladding) had the lowest GWP emissions com-
Citation: Taylor, C.; Roy, K.; Dani,
pared to the other case study houses, with 631.13 and 633.16 kg CO2 eq/m2 , respectively. However,
A.A.; Lim, J.B.P.; De Silva, K.; Jones,
it should be noted that all the case study houses were not similar in size and design. In addition,
M. Delivering Sustainable Housing
the study investigated the different building envelope material options for the foundation, wall
through Material Choice.
cladding, framing, and roof cladding. The study found that some new materials or materials that are
Sustainability 2023, 15, 3331. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su15043331
not common in New Zealand could be used as an option for the housing envelope by having lower
carbon emissions, such as 3D-printed concrete blocks compared with brick and concrete masonry for
Academic Editors: Wen-Hsien Tsai
wall cladding systems.
and Donato Morea

Received: 6 January 2023 Keywords: life-cycle assessment; building materials; global warming potential; cradle-to-cradle;
Revised: 7 February 2023 New Zealand
Accepted: 9 February 2023
Published: 11 February 2023

1. Introduction
The earth’s average air temperature has risen rapidly since the early 1800s, with
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
global temperature anomalies increasing from 0.4 ◦ C in the 1980s to above 1 ◦ C from 2010
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
onwards [1]. The primary drivers contributing to the changing climate of the earth are
This article is an open access article
carbon emissions, deforestation, and land-use change [2], all of which have relevance to the
distributed under the terms and
construction industry. The industry contributes to one-third of global carbon emissions and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
nearly 40% of total energy use [3]. In New Zealand, the building and construction industry
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
accounts for 20% of total national carbon emissions [4], with an increase of 26.4% between
4.0/). 1990 and 2019 [5]. The construction industry involves the extraction of huge amounts of

Sustainability 2023, 15, 3331. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043331 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 3331 2 of 16

materials, which necessitates the use of energy resources and the discharge of harmful
pollutant emissions into the environment [6].
Carbon emissions from a building are generally split into two components: embodied
and operational carbon. Embodied carbon is capital carbon produced to manufacture and
maintain materials used to construct the building, while operational carbon is the carbon
emitted during the building’s service life [7]. In response to the increase in carbon emissions
in the country, the New Zealand government set its carbon reduction goal (net-zero carbon
by 2050) in the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019 [8], while
also committing to the international agreement (Paris Agreement in 2016) to keep the global
temperature rise to 1.5 ◦ C by 2050 [9]. In addition, the Ministry of Business, Innovation,
and Employment (MBIE) announced the Building for Climate Change program, which
is responsible for leading the building and construction sector’s response to the climate
crisis [10]. As part of the program, they released the Whole-Of-Life Embodied Carbon
Assessment: Technical Methodology in 2022 [11] and the Whole-Of-Life Embodied Carbon
Emissions Reductions for Buildings framework in 2020 [4]. This includes a systematic
strategy and methodology for responding to the reduction goal in the construction sector.
Within New Zealand, there has been a lack of sufficient housing due to strong pop-
ulation growth. An estimated shortfall of between 28,000 and 45,000 dwellings has been
reported for Auckland alone [12]. With the demand for housing only growing, the increase
in new dwelling consents is expected to rise further [13]. However, construction materials
for new developments are significant contributors to atmospheric emissions and solid
waste. In current building practice, several building materials are utilized in the country’s
new residential buildings. Figure 1 shows the market share of different building envelope
materials in New Zealand. According to the Building Research Association of New Zealand
(BRANZ) report [14], a survey regarding the materials used in new housing between 2010
and 2019, sheet metal had the largest market share compared with other materials (e.g.,
tiles, membrane, and plastic) with a 70.8% share for roof cladding, and timber framing had
the largest market share compared to other materials for framing (e.g., steel and concrete)
with 85.8% in 2019. Weatherboard (which is 75% timber and fiber cement (FC) and PVC)
had a 43.7% market share for wall claddings, while finish brick (both clay and concrete)
had a 24.7% market share, and other materials (e.g., aerated concrete, FC sheet, plywood,
EIFS, stucco, sheet steel) had a 32.30% market share [14]. Additionally, for foundations
in New Zealand residential buildings, concrete led the market share with a total of 96%
and left only 4% for timber [15]. Looking at the material market shares in new residential
buildings in New Zealand, three materials are commonly used for constructing houses,
which are timber, steel, and concrete.
Given current building practices, timber has become the most commonly used material
for home construction (mainly for framing and wall cladding) [14], and it is a preferred
material in terms of sustainability [16]. However, the country is now experiencing a mate-
rial shortage due to a lack of national investment in timber product production capacity
and market supply and demand imbalances [17]. As a result, alternative construction
materials, such as steel and concrete, are anticipated, but they must also address sustain-
ability. Steelmaking is often noted as one of the most carbon-emission-intensive industries
worldwide, with the industry responsible for approximately 8% of all GHG emissions
worldwide [18]. In spite of its extensive carbon footprint during the manufacturing stage,
steel has the most potential for recycling out of the three primary materials, with a reported
96% combined reuse and recycling rate in the UK [19]. In New Zealand, at the end-of-life
(EOL) of a building, 75% of the steel mass, including steel sheets and structural steel, is
recycled [20]. In addition, 96% of new dwellings consist of a reinforced concrete foundation,
where the 30 MPa reinforced ordinary Portland cement (OPC) concrete with 100 kg/m3
steel reinforcement emits 0.29 kg CO2 eq/kg [21]. Looking at the EOL of the concrete, 80%
of the material mass will be sent to landfills, and only 20% of the mass will be treated in the
recycling process (crushed for aggregate) [18].
 ment (FC) and PVC) had a 43.7% market share for wall claddings, while finish brick (both
clay and concrete) had a 24.7% market share, and other materials (e.g., aerated concrete,
FC sheet, plywood, EIFS, stucco, sheet steel) had a 32.30% market share [14]. Additionally,
for foundations in New Zealand residential buildings, concrete led the market share with
a total of 96% and left only 4% for timber [15]. Looking at the material market shares in
Sustainability 2023, 15, 3331 3 of 16
new residential buildings in New Zealand, three materials are commonly used for con-
structing houses, which are timber, steel, and concrete.

Steel sheet Tiles, membrance, plastic, etc. Timber Steel and concrete

14.20%
29.20%

70.80%
85.80%

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16

(a) (b)

Weatherboard
Concrete Timber
Finish bricks clay and concrete
Other 4.00%

32.30%
43.00%

24.70% 96.00%

(c) (d)
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Building
Building materials’
materials’market
marketshare
shareininNew
NewZealand:
Zealand:(a)(a)
roof cladding;
roof (b)(b)
cladding; wall framing;
wall (c)
framing;
wall cladding; (d) foundation.
(c) wall cladding; (d) foundation.

Given current
Life-cycle building(LCA)
assessment practices,
is thetimber has becomeused
most commonly the most commonly
methodology forused mate-
assessing
rial environmental
the for home construction impacts (mainly for framing
of a product and andcanwall cladding)
be used [14], a
to assess and it is a preferred
building [22–33].
material
Two maininfocuses
terms of aresustainability
typically taken [16].
intoHowever,
account when the country
using LCAis now forexperiencing a ma-
buildings: analyz-
terial shortage due to a lack of national investment in timber
ing the carbon emissions from the overall structures and evaluating particular building product production capacity
and market supply
components, such as andthedemand
roof and imbalances
wall cladding[17]. As a result,
[26–28]. alternative
Chastas et al.construction
[29] conducted ma-
terials, such as steel and concrete, are anticipated, but they
a review of 95 published LCA case studies on residential buildings. They found that must also address sustainabil-
ity. Steelmaking
with a 50-year buildingis oftenlifespan,
noted asthe one of the most
embodied carbon carbon-emission-intensive
of the houses varied between industries179
worldwide,
and 1050 kg with
CO2 eq/m 2 , while responsible
the industry the operational for approximately
carbon was 1568% to of all GHG
4049.9 kg CO emissions
eq/m 2.
2
worldwide
Hawkins et [18]. In compared
al. [30] spite of its theextensive
embodied carbon footprint
carbon duringsteel,
of concrete, the manufacturing
and timber building stage,
steel has the
structures. most
They potentialthat
discovered for when
recycling out ofa the
applying fixed three
timeprimary
horizon materials,
metric withwith a re-
a cradle-
ported 96% combined reuse and recycling rate in the UK
to-cradle system boundary, the steel materials had the lowest result (269 kg CO2 eq/m[19]. In New Zealand, at the end-2)

of-life (EOL)
compared of a building,
to timber 75% of (336
(no replanting) the steel
kg CO mass, 2
including steel sheets andCOstructural 2
2 eq/m ) and concrete (348 kg 2 eq/m ).
In terms
steel, of comparing
is recycled [20]. Intheaddition,
building96% life-cycle
of new stages,
dwellingsPetrovic et al.of
consist [31] evaluated concrete
a reinforced a single-
family timber
foundation, house
where theusing
30 MPa a cradle-to-grave
reinforced ordinary system boundary
Portland with(OPC)
cement a 100-year lifespan.
concrete with
The use phase
100 kg/m 3 steelof the building was
reinforcement emitsresponsible
0.29 kg COfor 64% [21].
2eq/kg of theLooking
total carbon
at theemissions,
EOL of thewhile con-
the production
crete, 80% of the phases
materialwere responsible
mass will be sentfor 30%. Lookingand
to landfills, at the
only New
20%Zealand-based
of the mass will LCA be
studies, the total carbon emissions of a house
treated in the recycling process (crushed for aggregate) [18]. in New Zealand with a 90-year building
lifespan were examined
Life-cycle assessment by Chandrakumar
(LCA) is the most et al. [32]. According
commonly to the study, the
used methodology for residence
assessing
emits 16 kg CO2 eq/m 2 /year
the environmental impacts ofof carbon. They
a product and can compared
be usedthe outcome
to assess to the climate
a building [22–33].impli-
Two
cations of residential
main focuses construction
are typically taken intoin other countries,
account when which using LCA ranged forbetween
buildings: 10 and 90 kg
analyzing
CO eq/m2 /year.
the2carbon emissionsA studyfromcompared
the overall light steel and
structures and light timber houses
evaluating and found
particular building thatcom-
the
ponents, such as the roof and wall cladding [26–28]. Chastas et al. [29] conducted a review
of 95 published LCA case studies on residential buildings. They found that with a 50-year
building lifespan, the embodied carbon of the houses varied between 179 and 1050 kg
CO2eq/m2, while the operational carbon was 156 to 4049.9 kg CO2eq/m2. Hawkins et al.
[30] compared the embodied carbon of concrete, steel, and timber building structures.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 3331 4 of 16

difference in carbon emissions between these buildings was only 12.3%; hence, there was
no discernible difference [33].
Past studies have provided a background in research for the sustainability of materials
in the construction industry. There is a lack of in-depth analysis into the implications
of material choice within a New-Zealand-specific context. Therefore, this study aimed
to analyze the impact of different building materials on climate change and determine
how more sustainable construction and design of residential housing in New Zealand can
contribute to the government’s 2050 emissions reduction goals.

Study’s Objectives and Scope

Two objectives were outlined to meet the aim of the study:
(i) Assess and compare the current materials used for residential construction within
New Zealand in terms of sustainability by utilizing LCA;
(ii) Assess the feasibility of implementing different construction materials to decrease
lifetime emissions.
The analysis was completed by utilizing construction drawings of traditionally built
houses to understand the emissive nature of residential construction in the current environ-
ment. The focus revolved around building envelope components, including foundations,
roofing, exterior cladding, and framing. An overview of different material options for com-
ponents, including those with a current minority or zero market share, was compared to the
existing bulk materials used in the industry. This analysis outlined which materials provide
the lowest emissions for general new builds in New Zealand. Two research questions were
outlined in this study to bridge the analysis to the research objectives, which are:
(i) Which commonly or potentially used building materials in New Zealand’s residential
buildings have the lowest carbon emissions during their production and end-of-life stages?
(ii) Which commonly or potentially used building materials in New Zealand’s residential
buildings have the highest carbon benefits after the recycling and reusing stages?
The importance of assessing the building materials’ carbon emissions in New Zealand
is to give a brief overview of which building materials commonly used in the country have
potentially lower carbon emissions. It is expected to give a basis for a further assessment,
as it should be noted that different buildings are likely to have different carbon emissions.
In addition, understanding the potential carbon reduction from the recycling and reuse
processes of the used building materials is important. As the country has put effort into
achieving the net-zero carbon goal [8], this assessment is expected to help the building
industry take sustainability into consideration during the choice of building materials.

2. Methods and Materials

2.1. Method of the Study
A life-cycle assessment (LCA) was used in the study to quantify the carbon emissions
from the investigated houses and to compare different types of building envelope com-
ponents considered in the study (i.e., foundations, exterior cladding, wall framing, and
roofing). LCA was chosen as the assessment method because it allows the study to quantify
and analyze the carbon emissions from whole-of-life building life-cycle stages. Assessing
the environmental impacts of each stage of the building life cycle (from production to
end-of-life) is needed for a building product to check the carbon emissions thoroughly. The
LCA study followed the assessment framework outlined in ISO 14040:2006 [34], which
contained four steps in undertaking the LCA:
(1) Goal and scope;
(2) Inventory analysis;
(3) Impact assessment;
(4) Interpretation analysis.
The system boundary of this study was cradle-to-cradle, which takes into account
the whole-of-life building life cycles (from the production to end-of-life stages), including
 (1) Goal and scope;
(2) Inventory analysis;
(3) Impact assessment;
(4) Interpretation analysis.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 3331 The system boundary of this study was cradle-to-cradle, which takes into account the 5 of 16
whole-of-life building life cycles (from the production to end-of-life stages), including the
potential carbon offset after the end-of-life (EOL) stages (Modules A to D). Figure 2 illus-
trates
thethe selectedcarbon
potential building life-cycle
offset stages
after the considered
end-of-life in this
(EOL) study.
stages The Global
(Modules A toWarming
D). Figure 2
Potential (GWP) metric was selected as the environmental
illustrates the selected building life-cycle stages considered in this study. impact category to analyze
The Global
building
Warming materials’ whole-life
Potential (GWP) metric emissions.
was The choice
selected as of
thethe selected environmental
environmental impact category im- to
pacts is based on the main goal of the study, which is to aid the construction
analyze building materials’ whole-life emissions. The choice of the selected environmental industry in
Newimpacts
Zealand in meeting
is based on thethe maincountry’s
goal of net-zero
the study,carbon
which emissions
is to aid the target. The functional
construction industry in
unitNew
of this LCA study
Zealand was a kilogram
in meeting the country’sof carbon emissions
net-zero carbonper meter squared
emissions gross
target. The floor
functional
areaunit
of the house (kg CO eq/m 2). This functional unit was selected to accommodate the
of this LCA study was a kilogram of carbon emissions per meter squared gross floor
2

assessment
area of the of dissimilar
house (kg housing
CO2 eq/m sizes. The functional
2 ). This investigated unithouse
was designs
selectedwill be described the
to accommodate
in Section
assessment of dissimilar housing sizes. The investigated house designs will beand
2.2. The case study residential buildings have different house plans gross in
described
floorSection
areas. 2.2.
Therefore,
The casetostudy
limit the variations
residential in the results,
buildings the study
have different houseused the and
plans per square
gross floor
meter unitTherefore,
areas. of carbon emissions.
to limit theHowever,
variationsitinshould be noted
the results, that using
the study usedthe theselected
per square func-
meter
tional
unitunit for assessing
of carbon houses
emissions. of different
However, sizesbe
it should might
noted still
that have
using a limitation
the selected in functional
that it
could
unitpotentially benefit
for assessing one of
houses ofthe investigated
different houses.
sizes might A have
still houseawith a larger
limitation in GFA
that itwill
could
havepotentially
larger divided GWP values, which are likely to result in lower total
benefit one of the investigated houses. A house with a larger GFA will have carbon emissions.
larger divided GWP values, which are likely to result in lower total carbon emissions.

Figure 2. Case
Figure study
2. Case building
study life-cycle
building stages.
life-cycle stages.

In gathering
In gathering the data required
the data for inventory
required for inventoryanalysis, several
analysis, industry
several professionals
industry professionals
were contacted,
were andand
contacted, building consent
building drawings
consent drawingswerewere
procured for five
procured residential
for five houses
residential houses
constructed
constructed between
between20192019
and and
2021. Material
2021. take-offs
Material werewere
take-offs completed
completed withwith
design draw-
design draw-
ings,ings,
Bluebeam
Bluebeam Revu software
Revu software[35],[35],
andandhand calculations
hand to determine
calculations to determine the the
volume
volumeof of
materials
materials required
required for for
eacheach building
building component.
component. The The materials
materials carbon
carbon indicator
indicator fromfrom
BRANZBRANZ [18][18]
andand Environmental
Environmental Product
Product Declarations(EPD)
Declarations (EPD)Australasia
Australasia [36][36] were utilized
uti-
lizedin in
this study,
this study,as these datasets
as these are region-specific
datasets and could
are region-specific and maintain data consistency
could maintain data con-and
regional
sistency and significance.
regional significance.
The GWP
The GWP calculation calculation of five
of the the five investigated
investigated houses
houses waswas performed
performed using using LCAQuick
LCAQuick
V3.4.4 [37], a NewZealand-specific LCA tool developed by BRANZ
V3.4.4 [37], a NewZealand-specific LCA tool developed by BRANZ that utilizes locally that utilizes locally
sourced
sourced EPDs EPDs
andand construction
construction methods.
methods. The The software
software enabled
enabled the study
the study to obtain
to obtain the the
embodied
embodied andand operational
operational carbon
carbon emissions
emissions of houses
of the the houses
usingusing the midpoint
the midpoint approach.
approach.
Midpoints
Midpoints are recognized
are recognized as linkages
as linkages in thein the impact
impact group’sgroup’s cause-and-effect
cause-and-effect cycle (ancycle
en- (an
environmental mechanism) (e.g., GWP and acidification) [38]. The
vironmental mechanism) (e.g., GWP and acidification) [38]. The results from LCAQuick results from LCAQuick
were were compiled
compiled intointo an Excel
an Excel spreadsheet.
spreadsheet. DataData
werewere tabulated,
tabulated, and and graphs
graphs werewere produced
produced
to visualize the difference in GWP impact caused by each house design
to visualize the difference in GWP impact caused by each house design and material cho- and material chosen.
sen.
2.2. Houses Design and Operational Energy Used in the Study
Five residential buildings located in Coromandel and Cromwell, New Zealand, were
collected from local building practitioners. The scope of the LCA study considered the foun-
dation, frame, cladding, and roof. Several items were excluded from the material carbon
emission calculations, including fixings and finishings such as flooring (carpet/linoleum),
windows, kitchen/bathroom units, bolts, nails, and water used to wash the house’s exte-
rior. Table 1 shows a summary of the gross floor area (GFA) and building materials for
Sustainability 2023, 15, 3331 6 of 16

the five investigated houses. The case study residential buildings had dissimilar house
plans and sizes, but they were expected to represent the typical housing type and size in
New Zealand.

Table 1. Area of the case study buildings and building materials used in the study.

Case Building Gross Floor Area (m2 ) Foundation Frame Cladding Roof
Timber flooring founded on
House 1 230 senton piles with Timber Plywood Metal
concrete footings
House 2 237 Concrete waffle slab Light Steel Masonry Metal
House 3 185 Concrete waffle slab Timber Clay Brick Metal
Timber
House 4 a 196 Concrete waffle slab Timber Metal
Weatherboard
Timber flooring founded on Timber
House 5 b 185 Timber/LVL Metal
galvanized steel micro-piles Weatherboard
a Two-story dwelling. b Cromwell house design with prefabrication of significant components.

Three of the investigated case study buildings, 2, 3, and 4, were founded on a concrete
waffle slab—a reinforced concrete system with 1.1 × 1.1 m polystyrene pods arranged
to form 100 mm wide concrete ribs. Both timber flooring systems, 1 and 2, consisted of
plywood flooring underlain by joists and bearers founded on 350 × 350 mm senton piles
with concrete footings in House 1 and galvanized steel micro-piles in House 5. House 2
consisted of steel framing, while the remainder was framed with timber. A range of cladding
options was seen, with the majority of the market share materials utilized. All five case
study houses used metal as the roof covering, in conjunction with the 70.8% market share
of metal roofing reported [14]. The construction method of the five investigated residential
buildings was on-site construction, where the construction products were transported
to the construction site and installed on-site. In addition, the transportation distance
and material waste data used in this assessment referred to the New Zealand life-cycle
assessment databases, which were produced by BRANZ [20] and assigned in the LCA
calculation tool (LCAQuick). The construction waste of the building materials used in this
study varied between 1 and 23% of the material mass. The transportation data of this study
used the transportation modeling available in the LCAQuick and BRANZ’s Construction
Transport (Module A4) database [20], in which a generic transport distance and mode
were determined between the last manufacturer and construction site in Auckland, New
Zealand. The transport distances of the building materials used in the assessment were
varied, incorporating both ship and truck transportation modes.
Furthermore, calculations were completed to determine a forecast of GWP emissions
during a home’s operational life to determine the kWh of power from the grid and emissions
resultant from water use. The power use per year was determined by comparison to an
LCAQuick Reference Buildings [37] forecast power use, which amounts to 8150 kWh/year
for a dwelling with four residents. This is slightly above the New Zealand average of
around 7000 kWh/year [39]. The Ministry for the Environment frequently reports on the
emissions factor for grid-purchased electricity, averaging 0.13 kg CO2 eq/kWh for 2010–
2018 [40]. This value was multiplied by the total electricity used over 90 years of operation
to determine lifetime operational emissions. Therefore, this study used 7050 kWh/year
as a basis for five buildings’ operational energy use calculations. There were two critical
assumptions in the calculation: (1) there were no changes in power use patterns over the
building’s life, and (2) there was no change to the New Zealand grid’s electricity emission
factor over the building’s period. In addition, for operational water use, LCAQuick was
used and provided a lifetime emission value from water use when water demand was
input. BRANZ recommends 270.4 kL/year for a four-person dwelling [41], and this value
was used for the water demand of the investigated buildings.
 tricity emission factor over the building’s period. In addition, for operational water us
LCAQuick was used and provided a lifetime emission value from water use when wat
demand was input. BRANZ recommends 270.4 kL/year for a four-person dwelling [41
and this value was used for the water demand of the investigated buildings.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 3331 7 of 16

3. Results
3.1. Global Warming Potential (GWP) of Investigated Houses
3. Results
Five
3.1. residential
Global Warming buildings wereof investigated
Potential (GWP) to analyze the global warming potenti
Investigated Houses
(GWP) ofFivedifferent building
residential material
buildings types. Figure
were investigated 3 shows
to analyze the GWP
the global warmingvalues from the ca
potential
study houses
(GWP) investigated
of different inmaterial
building this study.
types.The house
Figure withthe
3 shows the highest
GWP valuestotal
fromGWP
the casevalue fro
study houses investigated in this study. The house with the highest
the case study houses was House 4, with a total emission of 957.49 kg CO2eq/m total GWP value from
2. The low
the case study houses was House 4, with a total emission of 957.49 kg CO eq/m 2 . The
est total GWP value was House 1, with 631.13 kg CO2eq/m22. Houses 22, 3, and 5 had tot
lowest total GWP value was House 1, with 631.13 kg CO2 eq/m . Houses 2, 3, and 5 had
GWPtotal
values
GWPof 633.16,
values 755.71,
of 633.16, and and
755.71, 666.97 kgkg
666.97 CO
CO 2eq/m2,2 respectively.
2 eq/m , respectively.

House 1

House 2

House 3

House 4

House 5

−200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Global Warming Potential (kg CO₂ eq/m²)
A1-A3 Product stage A4-A5 Construction process stage
B2: Maintenance & B4: Replacement B6 Operational Energy Use
B7 Operational Water Use C1-C4: End of life
D: Materials Benefits

Figure 3. Global
Figure warming
3. Global warmingpotential results
potential results of of
thethe
fivefive
casecase
studystudy buildings.
buildings.

3.2. Global Warming Potential (GWP) of Envelope Components

3.2. Global Warming Potential (GWP) of Envelope Components
Materials’ environmental performance was determined using LCAQuick to quantify
Materials’
the environmental
carbon emissions performance
from various was determined
building materials using LCAQuick
for each building envelope com- to quanti
the carbon
ponent. emissions
To provide from various
consistency andbuilding materials
comparison, for each
the material building
needed for the envelope
cladding, comp
2 gross
nent. To provide consistency and comparison, the material needed for themcladding,
framing, and roofing envelope components was converted and stated as a 230 fram
ing, floor
and area.
roofing envelope components was converted and stated as a 230 m2 gross flo
area.3.2.1. Foundation Options
Four foundation types were analyzed, namely traditional concrete slabs, concrete
3.2.1.waffle
Foundation Options
slabs (RibRaft), and two timber flooring options. The first timber floor system was
founded on senton piles and concrete footings, while the other utilized galvanized steel
Four foundation types were analyzed, namely traditional concrete slabs, concre
micro-pile systems seldom used in New Zealand, in which there was a concrete-free foun-
waffle slabs
dation (RibRaft),
(Surefoot and twoTable
micro-piles). timber flooring
2 below options.
outlines the GWP The firstfoundation
of each timber floor system w
system
founded on senton
for a constant 230 piles
2 and
m floor concrete
area. footings,
Note that whilestages
the life-cycle the other
B2 andutilized galvanized ste
B4 (maintenance
micro-pile systems seldom
and replacement) used from
were excluded in New Zealand, in
the calculation. which
It was therethat
assumed wasthea concrete-free
foundation fou
had a service life equal to that of the whole building and did not require
dation (Surefoot micro-piles). Table 2 below outlines the GWP of each foundation syste maintenance
or replacement. 2
for a constant 230 m floor area. Note that the life-cycle stages B2 and B4 (maintenance an
replacement) were excluded from the calculation. It was assumed that the foundation ha
a service life equal to that of the whole building and did not require maintenance or r
placement.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 3331 8 of 16

Table 2. Global warming potential (GWP) of foundation options.

GWP during Life-Cycle Stages for 230 m2 Floor Area

Volume of Material (kg CO2eq)
System Name
Required for 230 m2 Floor
A1–A3 A4–A5 C1–C4 D Total
Traditional concrete slab 34.5m3 16,685 1077 1408 −658 18,512
Concrete waffle slab 71.3 m3 16,320 1322 1264 −667 18,239
Timber with plywood floor, senton
43.7 m3 8981 4084 8692 −3821 17,835
pile + concrete foundations
Timber with plywood floor,
23 m3 11,736 1932 3836 −4886 12,618
Surefoot micro-piles

3.2.2. Wall Cladding Options

Several cladding options with large market shares were considered, including concrete
masonry, timber, clay brick, and fiber cement weatherboard, which comprise over 90%
of the current market. Two less frequently chosen cladding options were selected: metal
and 3D-printed concrete blocks. While metal is frequently seen as a roofing component,
it has gained popularity in recent years as a wall cladding option, most likely due to the
durability and aesthetics of the material. Table 3 shows the GWP values of the investigated
cladding options.

Table 3. Global warming potential (GWP) of wall cladding options.

GWP during Life-Cycle Stages for 230 m2 Floor Area (kg CO2 eq)
Name
A1–A3 A4–A5 B2, B4 C1–C4 D Total
Brick 13,099 5047 0 659 −656 18,148
Concrete masonry 17,695 9585 0 1721 −770 28,231
Fiber cement Weatherboard 1655 501 2181 50 −150 4237
Timber weatherboard 1758 677 3059 1203 −677 5440
Plywood 2646 773 3922 504 −132 7711
Metal 5967 150 18,777 125 −6318 18,702
3D-printed concrete block 12,402 857 0 1530 −55 14,733

3.2.3. Framing Options

The framing options considered in this study include standard timber framing and
light gauge steel, the two most commonly used framing options in New Zealand; laminated
veneer lumber (LVL); and a unique framing option in the form of structural insulated panels
(SIPs). Table 4 shows the GWP values of the investigated framing options.

Table 4. Global warming potential (GWP) of framing options.

GWP during Life-Cycle Stages for 230 m2 Floor Area (kg CO2 eq)
Name
A1–A3 A4–A5 B2, B4 C1–C4 D Total
Timber 3815 1749 2239 3148 −614 10,338
LVL 3620 1027 2239 1409 −86 8209
Light gauge steel 3773 671 2239 764 −709 6737
Steel-faced SIPs 21,062 1997 1101 232 −1920 22,471
MDF SIPs 6232 1593 0 612 −165 8272

3.2.4. Roofing Options

As mentioned, the roofing material market in New Zealand is primarily dominated by
steel sheet roofing, with over 70% of new builds utilizing the material [14]. The emissions of
asphalt shingles, clay tiles, and fiber cement slates were also analyzed, and their emissions
were compared to those of steel sheet roofing. Table 5 below outlines the GWP of the
roofing option for a constant 230 m2 floor area. The study found that there was a significant
difference between the different roof cladding options. The clay tile roof had the highest
Sustainability 2023, 15, 3331 9 of 16

carbon emissions compared to other roofing options, while it doubled in value with the
steel roof (the most popular roofing option in New Zealand).

Table 5. Global warming potential (GWP) of roofing options.

GWP during Life-Cycle Stages for 230 m2 Floor Area (kg CO2 eq)
System Name Assumed Life (Years)
A1–A3 A4–A5 B2, B4 C1–C4 D Total
Asphalt shingles 30 2420 340 4850 170 0 7790
Clay tiles 30 14,160 20 28,330 350 −40 42,830
Fiber cement slates 30 2050 0 4100 0 0 6150
Steel 45 6790 170 21,360 140 −7190 21,280

4. Discussion
4.1. GWP Values of the Five Investigated Houses
Five residential buildings’ GWP values were analyzed using the life-cycle assessment
(LCA) approach. These investigated houses were located in Coromandel and Cromwell,
New Zealand. The total GWP of houses excluded the material emissions from fixings and
finishing such as flooring (e.g., carpet), windows, kitchen and bathroom units, bolts, nails,
and water used to wash the house’s exterior. Therefore, the house’s GWP values were
calculated based on the foundation, framing, wall cladding, and roofing materials, and the
operational energy and water used throughout the building’s life span.
From the GWP results, the operational emissions were the largest contributor to the
total values. Overall, the operational emissions found in this study ranged between 53%
and 82% of the total GWP values from the investigated houses, or 436 and 542 kg CO2 eq/m2 .
The embodied emissions from the five houses had varied values, which were from 124 to
445.70 kg CO2 eq/m2 . An energy analysis was performed in this study to understand the
highest emitters’ energy end-use of the investigated buildings. The study found that plug
loads and hot water were the top two emissions contributors, with approximately 85% of
total emissions from the operational energy stage. However, it should be noted that the
study did not include all the building materials from the house. Therefore, the operational
emissions might have a larger contribution compared to the embodied emissions.
House 10 s total GWP value, by considering the cradle-to-cradle system boundary, was
631.13 kg CO2 eq/m2 , with embodied emissions of 216.93 kg CO2 eq/m2 . Production stages
(A1–A3) were the most predominant embodied emitters compared to other life stages, with
a 45% contribution. In Module D, the embodied carbon of House 1 was reduced by 14% to
194.99 kg CO2 eq/m2 due to the reuse and recycling potential of the materials used in the
building. The use of metal roofing in House 1 made a large contribution to potential carbon
reduction after the life cycle of the building, with approximately 11.7 kg CO2 eq/m2 , or 59%
of total carbon offset. The rest of the carbon offset was obtained from the accumulation of
steel bars in the concrete foundation and timber in the foundation and wall systems.
For House 2, the total GWP value was 633.16 kg CO2 eq/m2 , and the embodied
emission from the building was 235.45 kg CO2 eq/m2 . Production stages were responsible
for 69% of the total embodied emissions of the house. The in situ reinforced concrete with a
25 MPa strength produced the most embodied emissions compared to the other materials
used in House 2 during the production stages (A1–A3), with approximately 53% of the
total stages’ emissions. After the EOL stages, House 2 received a carbon offset of −25.56 kg
CO2 eq/m2 , which reduced the total embodied emissions by 11%. Three materials were
found to have the most contribution in offsetting the carbon, accounting for 90% of the
carbon offset, namely the metal roof sheets, steel purlins, and steel rebars.
House 30 s total GWP value was 755.71 kg CO2 eq/m2 , with the embodied emissions
from the house being 240.17 kg CO2 eq/m2 . Similar to House 1 and 2, the production stages
were the largest emitter stages in terms of embodied emissions, with approximately 58%.
Concrete had the most prominent embodied emissions compared to other materials in
the production stages, accounting for 63% of the total production stages’ carbon. In terms
of Module D, House 3 received a carbon offset potential of −26.68 kg CO2 eq/m2 , which
Sustainability 2023, 15, 3331 10 of 16

reduced the total house embodied emission to 213.49 kg CO2 eq/m2 . The use of metal
roof cladding resulted in a carbon offset of −19.4 kg CO2 eq/m2 , which was the largest
contribution to the carbon reduction after the EOL stages compared to other materials in
the house.
The total GWP values from House 4 were the largest of the five investigated houses,
with approximately 957.45 kg CO2 eq/m2 . In terms of the embodied emissions, House 4
emitted 492.82 kg CO2 eq/m2 during whole life stages of the building, from production to
EOL stages. The high number of embodied emissions was due to the production stages of
the building, where the reinforced concrete contributed most of the material emissions. The
suspended concrete slab used to form the second level of the dwelling increased the volume
of reinforced concrete required; therefore, House 4 had the largest embodied emissions
compared to the other case study houses.
For House 5, the total GWP value was 666.97 kg CO2 eq/m2 , and the embodied carbon
associated with the house was 144.55 kg CO2 eq/m2 . The production stage was the most
prominent embodied carbon emitter compared to other life stages, with a 50% contribution
of total embodied carbon. When including Module D, the house’s embodied carbon was
reduced by 19.81 kg CO2 eq/m2 , or 14% of the total embodied carbon from other life stages.
The use of steel-based elements in the design, such as the corrugated metal roof and steel
foundation piles, greatly contributed to decreasing the embodied carbon of the house after
the EOL stages due to the ease of recycling and reuse of this material. However, if the
consideration was only on the production stages, these building elements would be among
the largest carbon emitters in the case study building, along with the laminated veneer
lumber product in the building.
In order to check the validity of the results, a comparison was made between the study’s
LCA results and previous studies from the literature. From the study’s LCA results, the
embodied carbon of investigated houses ranged between 144.55 and 235.45 kg CO2 eq/m2 ,
while the findings from Chastas et al. [29] varied between 179 and 1050 kg CO2 eq/m2 . Most
of the investigated houses’ embodied carbon was comparable with the previous study but
appeared to have relatively lower GWP values. This is because the study only considered
four building envelope elements (not a whole building element), namely the foundation, wall
framing, exterior cladding, and roof cladding. In terms of operational carbon, the study’s
results ranged between 436 and 542 kg CO2 eq/m2 . These values conform to the literature,
which varied from 156 to 4049.9 kg CO2 eq/m2 [29].

4.2. GWP Values of Different Envelope Components’ Materials Options

GWP values from different building envelope components’ material options were
analyzed. The analysis was carried out to understand the embodied carbon produced by
different materials in the building’s envelope.

4.2.1. Foundations
The traditional concrete slab had the highest embodied carbon compared to other
foundation system options. The system emitted 18,512 kg CO2 eq for a 230 m2 floor area
house, of which the production stage was the most prominent stage. The concrete waffle
slab had the second highest embodied carbon, with only a 1.75% difference with the
traditional concrete slab. These two systems require a high volume of concrete, which
results in higher carbon emissions. The production of cement in concrete products releases
a vast amount of carbon. The burning of fossil fuels to heat the rotary kiln and the chemical
reaction connected with the calcination process in the formation of clinker, the principal
component of cement, are the two major CO2 producers in cement production [42]. The
timber with the Surefoot micro-piles system had the lowest embodied carbon compared to
other system options. The system received the largest carbon offset in Module D, which
had a carbon offset of −4886 kg CO2 eq, due to the use of steel material in the system that
can be recycled or reused at the EOL stages of the building.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 3331 11 of 16

The timber floor founded on steel micro-piles required a considerably lower volume
of materials than the other three foundation options. The 32 mm diameter micro-piles
used were much smaller than the senton pile’s system, requiring less soil disturbance from
excavation, and no concrete was needed to fix the supports into the soil. The time and effort
required to construct a micro-pile foundation system were considerably reduced compared
to a concrete slab or timber senton pile system. This leads to less potential for harm to
ecosystems from the sediment and erosion caused by the earthwork’s operation.

4.2.2. Exterior Cladding

Concrete masonry cladding was the largest carbon emitter in terms of cladding options
considered in the study, with a value of 28,231 kg CO2 eq for a 230 m2 floor area house. The
use of a high volume of concrete for this cladding option led to a large amount of embodied
carbon. Other options that were found to have significant embodied carbon were metal
and brick cladding systems, which produced 18,702 and 18,148 kg CO2 eq, respectively. For
brick and concrete masonry, most embodied carbon was produced during the production
and construction life-cycle stages due to the largely emissive processes utilized to form
materials from raw ingredients. Metal cladding emitted most of its embodied carbon
during the B2 and B4 maintenance and replacement stages due to the projected replacement
required at least once within the building’s operational life. However, as module D was
considered in this study, the sizeable portion of embodied carbon of the metal roof was
offset after the EOL stage due to the ease of recycling the steel when the building reaches
its end of service life.
The 3D-printed concrete blocks emitted 14,735 kg of CO2 eq during their whole life-
cycle stages. However, this system was utilized as the cladding and structural frame, and
it only required a waterproofing sealant layer as a finishing, compared to the addition of
timber or steel framing, insulation, gib, and paint required for the other cladding options
to form a finished whole wall element. Most of the emissions from this system were
experienced in the production stage due to the emissive processes utilized to produce
concrete. In addition, plywood, fiber cement, and timber weatherboards emitted much less
carbon than the other cladding options analyzed. These options had low embodied carbon
emissions during the production stage, which ranged between 1178 and 2646 kg CO2 eq.
While all options provide some carbon offset within module D and potential envi-
ronmental benefits outside the life cycle, the metal cladding option provides significantly
more benefit than all other options, with the intent for steel in this life-cycle stage to be
fully recycled. As the industry becomes more aware of the potential for emissions reduc-
tion through more efficient and better-considered recycling and reuse of decommissioned
materials, more innovative uses for building materials at the end of their life as building
components will be available in New Zealand.

4.2.3. Framing
Apart from the steel-faced SIP walls, the GWP contribution from framing components
is generally small in comparison to the other building envelope elements studied in this
paper. The majority of the emissions created by this frame choice occur during the A1–A3
product manufacture life-cycle stage, primarily due to the emissions required to produce
the steel facing.
In New Zealand, the most common type of framing material is timber, while the
use of light steel continues to grow [12]. The study found that the timber framing for
the investigated 230 m3 floor area house emitted 10,338 kg CO2 eq, and the light steel
was 6737 kg CO2 eq. Compared to the timber framing, the light steel framing had lower
emissions during the construction (A4–A5) and end-of-life (C1–C4) stages, and it had a
higher carbon offset due to the potential ease of the recycling process of this material after
its service life. In New Zealand, 75% of the steel mass of a building is typically recycled
at the end of the building’s service life [20]. By putting this into practice, the carbon
offset could occur after the EOL stage as the steel material will be in a closed-loop life
Sustainability 2023, 15, 3331 12 of 16

cycle and result in lower carbon emissions compared to other building material choices.
However, it should be noted that the use of timber material in this study is characterized
by unsustainable forest management practices, which result in higher carbon emissions
compared to sustainable practices. Sustainable practice is defined as forestry activities in
which trees are planted to replace those that have been cut for processing [20]. Therefore, if
the timber is sourced from sustainable forest management practices, the carbon emissions
might be lower as there is a sequestered carbon phenomenon due to the cut trees being
replanted. Hence, during the material selection stage of the residential building project, the
designer should consider the embodied carbon and potential carbon offsets of the selected
materials for the house framing, especially the timber and steel products. Efficiency in
house design could also reduce the number of materials used in the house framing, which
could minimize the carbon emissions from this building component.
In addition, the MDF SIP wall framing had added benefits, including providing
exterior cladding and interior finishing without the need for plasterboard and paint, and
higher overall thermal performance. Therefore, this material should be further tested
within the New Zealand environment to determine its feasibility as a high-use material in
compliance with the Building Code.

4.2.4. Roofing
For the roofing system, the study found that clay tile shingle roofing provided the
most GWP emissions of the four investigated materials, a total of 42,830 kg of CO2 eq for
a 230 m2 floor area house. This was due to the high GWP emissions from the production
stages (A1–A3) and the need for new materials in the maintenance and replacement stages
(C1–C4) of the material life cycles. When model D was considered, the material only had a
low potential carbon offset after the EOL stages, which was −40 kg CO2 eq, and the value
could not be compared with other life stages that had massive emissions.
Asphalt shingles and fiber cement slates provided relatively low GWP emissions
compared to other investigated roofing material options, which had 7790 and 6150 kg
CO2eq, respectively. Much less carbon was emitted during the production stages (A1–A3)
when compared to clay tiles, which led to fewer emissions when the material needed to
be replaced during the maintenance and replacement stages (B2 and B4). However, it was
noted that this style of roofing is more prone to damage from the surrounding environment
and requires maintenance and replacement more frequently than the metal roofing used in
over 90% of current new builds.
Steel roofing (metal sheet) is the most commonly used roofing option in New Zealand’s
residential houses and has approximately 70% market share. In this study, it was found
that this type of roof cladding had 21,280 kg of CO2 eq. The production, maintenance,
and replacement stages contributed the largest GWP emissions, with 6790 and 21,360 kg
CO2 eq, respectively. However, the GWP values of the steel roof were reduced after the
EOL stages, which were found to have a potential carbon offset of −7190 kg CO2 eq due
to the ease of recycling process of this material. In addition, within the country, a house’s
roof is exposed to much more UV radiation than in most other nations, in conjunction with
relatively frequent severe winds and rain. For these reasons, a metal sheet roof is most
likely the best choice for roofing in New Zealand, owing to its simplicity of installation,
with less work and time needed for construction than a shingle roof alternative. The steel
roof’s potential environmental advantages (carbon offset) far surpass the other choices
studied. Even with improved material recycling in the future, the simplicity of reusing and
repurposing steel exceeds the other choices evaluated. In addition, the roofing options,
on average, were found to have the largest carbon emissions compared to other building
envelope components, and it is suggested that the building practice limits the construction
waste during the construction process of steel roof cladding. The selection of the steel roof
cladding profile should also consider the embodied carbon of the product. Steel roofs in
New Zealand are often made of thin lengths of cold-rolled steel coil folded into forms such
as corrugated, trapezoidal, or standing seam. Different steel roof profiles have different
Sustainability 2023, 15, 3331 13 of 16

carbon emissions [27,28]. Thus, limiting construction waste in the construction stage and
choosing the steel cladding profile with the lowest carbon emissions in the design stage
could minimize the carbon emissions from a building product.

5. Conclusions
This study analyzed the global warming potential (GWP) values of five residential
buildings in New Zealand and compared the building materials for the foundation, wall
cladding, wall framing, and roof cladding options. Life-cycle assessment was the methodol-
ogy followed in the study in analyzing the emission values from the investigated building
products. In quantifying the GWP values, a New Zealand-based LCA tool (LCAQuick)
was utilized, where the local database (e.g., materials’ carbon indicators) was used.
Through analysis of building consent issue drawings for residential dwellings and
calculation using the LCAQuick, a large amount of variability in the weight of carbon
emitted through building materials was seen. House 10 s building envelope, consisting of
timber elements for the foundation, frame, and wall cladding and steel material for the
roofing, produced the lowest GWP emissions of the four traditional houses analyzed, with
631.13 kg CO2 eq/m2 . House 40 s envelope had the largest GWP value, which produced
957.49 kg CO2 eq/m2 , due primarily to reinforced concrete foundations and a second-floor
suspended concrete slab. With the large quantity of concrete materials in House 4, the
house required a high volume of cement, which resulted in higher carbon emissions. In
addition, when analyzing different building life-cycle stages of the investigated houses,
the study found that operational energy use was the most significant contributor to at-
mospheric emissions, ranging between 53% and 82% of the total house GWP emissions.
However, there are significant potential reductions to the emission contributions during the
construction, maintenance, and EOL stages depending on the materials chosen for building
envelope components.
Significant building contributions from certain materials were seen within each build-
ing envelope component. For the foundation option, the traditional concrete slab and the
concrete waffle slab had the largest GWP emissions, with 18,512 and 18,239 kg CO2 eq,
respectively. Timber with a plywood floor and Surefoot micro-piles foundation, where the
system is concrete-free and installed via steel tubular micro-piles driven into the ground,
had the lowest GWP emissions and less obtrusive construction and earthworks required.
This system is engineered to Australian/New Zealand Standards and complies with the
Building Code of New Zealand with load capacities up to 360 kN (36 tonnes).
Concrete masonry, metal, and brick were the top three GWP emitters in the investi-
gated exterior wall cladding options. These materials were found to have emissions almost
three and a half times higher than the other options. For the framing, the steel-faced SIPs
had the largest GWP values among the framing options, with 22,371 kg CO2 eq. Looking at
the most common framing types in New Zealand, timber framing had 10,338 kg CO2 eq,
while the light steel frame had 6737 kg CO2 eq. In terms of roofing options, the clay tile roof
had the highest GWP emissions compared to other roof options, which are asphalt shingles,
fiber cement slates, and steel sheets, emitting 42,830 kg CO2 eq. The GWP values from clay
tiles were double the emissions from the steel roof cladding. Steel roofs (metal sheets), the
most commonly used material for roofing in the country, had 21,280 kg CO2 eq. In addition,
when considering module D, the steel-based material showed the largest potential for
carbon offset after the EOL stages compared to other investigated materials. The high
recovery and recyclability rates of these materials, including the ease of demolition and
recycling processes, enabled the steel material to be reused and recycled, resulting in the
product being kept in closed loops.
The study has several limitations that might influence the outcomes of the study and
should be addressed in future studies. The limitations include:
• The use of different case study houses’ plans and gross floor areas in this assessment.
In order to address this limitation, this study used a kilogram of carbon emissions per
meter squared of the gross floor area of the house (kg CO2 eq/m2 ). It was expected to
Sustainability 2023, 15, 3331 14 of 16

limit the variations in the results and give comparable results within the case study
buildings. However, having similar house plans and sizes will benefit future studies
in the same direction.
• The study only considered the main materials for the foundation, frame, cladding,
and roof. Some building components, such as windows, doors, flooring, and other
ancillary items, were excluded from this study. However, to give a clear picture of
the building’s environmental impact assessment, whole building components are
suggested to be assessed through further study.
• The calculated operational energy used was based on two assumptions: steady power
usage and no change to the New Zealand grid’s electricity emissions factor over the
building’s service life. This is regarded as a study limitation in modeling the electricity
used in case study buildings. Future studies are expected to overcome this limitation
in their assessment with more precise operational carbon emissions included in the
assessment outcome.
In addition, analyzing the environmental impacts of off-site prefabrication of compo-
nents would give designers more options to look at possible options in designing a house,
as this technique may lead to optimization of materials, which could reduce material waste
and construction time. More practical considerations, such as constructability and cost, in
comparing the building materials could add more benchmarks for designers in selecting
materials. In the context of New Zealand, determining the relationship between building
envelope thermal performance and operational energy use through heating and cooling
would give a clearer picture of the importance of exceeding the New Zealand Building Code
H1 Energy Efficiency [43] minimum requirements to reduce overall GWP contribution.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.R., J.B.P.L., K.D.S. and M.J.; methodology, K.R. and C.T.;
software, C.T. and A.A.D.; formal analysis, K.R., C.T. and A.A.D.; investigation, C.T. and A.A.D.;
resources, K.R. and C.T.; writing—original draft preparation, C.T. and A.A.D.; writing—review and
editing, K.R., K.D.S. and M.J.; visualization, C.T., and A.A.D.; supervision, J.B.P.L., K.D.S. and M.J.;
project administration, K.R. and J.B.P.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Rohde, R. Global Temperature Report for 2020; Berkley Earth: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2021.
2. Nema, P.; Nema, S.; Roy, P. An Overview of Global Climate Change in the Current Scenario and Mitigation Action; Netaji Subhash
Engineering College: Kolkata, India, 2012.
3. UNEP. Buildings and Climate Change: Summary for Decision Makers; United Nations Environment Programme: Paris, France, 2009.
4. Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment. Whole-of-Life Embodied Carbon Emissions Reduction Framework; MBIE: Wellington,
New Zealand, 2020; p. 24. Available online: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/11794-whole-of-life-embodied-carbon-
emissions-reduction-framework (accessed on 5 July 2022).
5. Ministry for the Environment. New Zealand’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2019; Ministry for the Environment: Wellington, New
Zealand, 2021. Available online: https://environment.govt.nz/assets/Publications/New-Zealands-Greenhouse-Gas-Inventory-
1990-2019-Volume-1-Chapters-1-15.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2022).
6. Jones, C.; Hammond, G. Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials. Proc. Ice—Energy 2008, 161, 87–98. [CrossRef]
7. Praseeda, K.I.; Reddy, B.; Mani, M. Embodied and operational energy of urban residential buildings in India. Energy Build. 2016,
110, 211–219. [CrossRef]
8. Parliamentary Counsel Office. Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019 No 61., Public Act Contents—New Zealand
Legislation; New Zealand Legislation: Wellington, New Zealand, 2019. Available online: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/
public/2019/0061/latest/LMS183736.html (accessed on 7 July 2022).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 3331 15 of 16

9. Ministry for the Environment. Paris Agreement. Available online: https://environment.govt.nz/what-government-is-doing/

international-action/about-theparis-agreement/ (accessed on 7 July 2022).
10. Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment. Building for Climate Change: Transforming the Building and Construction Sector
to Reduce Emissions and Improve Climate Resilience; MBIE: Wellington, New Zealand, 2020; p. 10. Available online: https:
//www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/11522-building-for-climate-change (accessed on 5 July 2022).
11. Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment. Whole-of-Life Embodied Carbon Assessment: Technical Methodology; MBIE:
Wellington, New Zealand, 2022; p. 18. Available online: https://www.building.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/getting-started/
building-for-climate-change/whole-of-life-embodied-carbon-assessment-technical-methodology.pdf (accessed on 6 July 2022).
12. Johnson, A.; Howden-Chapman, P.; Eaqub, S. A Stocktake of New Zealand’s Housing; New Zealand Government: Wellington, New
Zealand, 2018.
13. Stats NZ. Building Consents Issued: September 2020. 2020. Available online: https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/
building-consents-issued-september-2020 (accessed on 6 July 2022).
14. Lockyer, O.; Clarke, C. Physical characteristics of new houses 2019. In BRANZ Study Report SR447; BRANZ Ltd.: Judgeford, New
Zealand, 2021.
15. Gamage, G.; Vickers, J.; Fisher, B.; Nebel, B.; Townsend, E. Under Construction: Hidden Emissions and Untapped Potential of Buildings
for New Zealand’s 2050 Zero-Carbon Goal; NZGBC: Wellington, New Zealand, 2019.
16. Collins, M.; Barnard, T.; Bayne, K.; Duignan, A.; Shayer, S. Building Green in New Zealand: Wood—A sustainable Construction Choice;
Forest Research: Rotorua, New Zealand, 2003.
17. Leys, J. We Can’t See the Wood for the Trees: Understanding New Zealand’s Wood Supply Crisis; Stuff: Wellington, New Zealand, 2021;
Available online: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/300271061/we-cant-see-the-wood-for-the-trees-understanding-
new-zealands-wood-supply-crisis (accessed on 10 July 2022).
18. Hoffmann, C.; Van Hoey, M.; Zeumer, B. Decarbonisation Challenge for Steel. Retrieved from McKinsey & Company. 2020.
Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/metals-and-mining/our-insights/decarbonization-challenge-for-steel
(accessed on 10 July 2022).
19. Sansom, M.; Avery, N. Briefing: Reuse and recycling rates of UK steel demolition arisings. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. —Eng. Sustain.
2014, 167, 89–94. [CrossRef]
20. BRANZ. Data. Available online: https://www.branz.co.nz/environment-zero-carbon-research/framework/data/ (accessed on
10 July 2022).
21. BRANZ. BRANZ CO2 nstruct Database; BRANZ: Porirua, New Zealand, 2019; Available online: https://www.branz.co.nz/
environment-zero-carbon-research/framework/branz-co2nstruct/ (accessed on 10 July 2021).
22. Ortiz-Rodríguez, O.; Castells, F.; Sonnemann, G. Life cycle assessment of two dwellings: One in Spain, a developed country, and
one in Colombia, a country under development. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408, 2435–2443. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Rebitzer, G.; Ekvall, T.; Frischknecht, R.; Hunkeler, D.; Norris, G.; Rydberg, T.; Schmidt, W.-P.; Suh, S.; Weidema, B.P.; Pennington,
D.W. Life cycle assessment: Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ. Int. 2004,
30, 701–720. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Olsen, S.I.; Christensen, F.M.; Hauschild, H.; Pedersen, F.; Larsen, H.F.; Torslov, J. Life cycle impact assessment and risk assessment
of chemicals in a methodological comparison. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2001, 21, 385–404. [CrossRef]
25. Vilches, A.; Martinez, A.; Montanes, B. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of building refurbishment: A literature review. Energy Build.
2017, 135, 286–301. [CrossRef]
26. Giordano, R.; Gallina, F.; Quaglio, B. Analysis and Assessment of the Building Life Cycle. Indicators and Tools for the Early
Design Stage. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6467. [CrossRef]
27. Roy, K.; Su, R.; Dani, A.A.; Fang, Z.; Liang, H.; Lim, J.B.P. Spatiotemporal Model to Quantify Stocks of Metal Cladding Products
for a Prospective Circular Economy. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4597. [CrossRef]
28. Roy, K.; Dani, A.A.; Ichhpuni, H.; Fang, Z.; Lim, J.B.P. Improving Sustainability of Steel Roofs: Life Cycle Assessment of a Case
Study Roof. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5943. [CrossRef]
29. Chastas, P.; Theodosiou, T.; Kontoleon, K.J.; Bikas, D. Normalising and assessing carbon emissions in the building sector: A
review on the embodied CO2 emissions of residential buildings. Build. Environ. 2018, 130, 212–226. [CrossRef]
30. Hawkins, W.; Cooper, S.; Allen, S.; Roynon, J.; Ibell, T. Embodied carbon assessment using a dynamic climate model: Case-study
comparison of a concrete, steel and timber building structure. Structures 2021, 33, 90–98. [CrossRef]
31. Petrovic, B.; Myhren, J.A.; Zhang, X.; Wallhagen, M.; Eriksson, O. Life cycle assessment of a wooden single-family house in
Sweden. Appl. Energy 2019, 251, 113253. [CrossRef]
32. Chandrakumar, C.; McLaren, S.J.; Dowdell, D.; Jaques, R. A science-based approach to setting climate targets for buildings: The
case of a New Zealand detached house. Build. Environ. 2020, 169, 106560. [CrossRef]
33. Dani, A.A.; Roy, K.; Masood, R.; Fang, Z.; Lim, J.B.P. A Comparative Study on the Life Cycle Assessment of New Zealand
Residential Buildings. Buildings 2022, 12, 50. [CrossRef]
34. International Organization for Standardization. ISO Standard No. 14040:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle
Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/3745
6.html (accessed on 1 July 2022).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 3331 16 of 16

35. Bluebeam. Revu, (Version 20) [Computer Software]. 2020. Available online: https://www.bluebeam.com/uk/solutions/revu/
(accessed on 18 June 2022).
36. EPD Australasia. EPD Australasia. 2021. Available online: https://epd-australasia.com/ (accessed on 28 June 2022).
37. BRANZ. LCAQuick, (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. 2020. Available online: https://www.branz.co.nz/environment-zero-
carbon-research/framework/lcaquick/ (accessed on 29 June 2022).
38. Bare, J.C.; Hofstetter, P.; Pennington, D.W.; De Haes, H.A.U. Midpoints versus endpoints: The sacrifices and benefits. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 2000, 5, 319. [CrossRef]
39. Electricity Authority. Electricity in New Zealand. Electricity Authority. 2018. Available online: https://www.ea.govt.nz/assets/
dms-assets/20/20410Electricity-in-NZ-2018.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2021).
40. Ministry for the Environment. Measuring Emissions: A Guide for Organisations; New Zealand Government: Wellington, New
Zealand, 2020.
41. Heinrich, M. SR159—Water End Use and Efficiency Projecy; BRANZ: Wellington, New Zealand, 2007.
42. Antunes, M.; Santos, R.L.; Pereira, J.; Rocha, P.; Horta, R.B.; Colaço, R. Alternative Clinker Technologies for Reducing Carbon
Emissions in Cement Industry: A Critical Review. Materials 2021, 15, 209. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment. NZ Building Code—H1 Energy efficiency. Retrieved from Building Perfor-
mance NZ. 2021. Available online: https://www.building.govt.nz/building-code-compliance/h-energy-efficiency/h1-energy-
efficiency/ (accessed on 17 July 2022).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.