Environmental Science and Pollution Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29092-6

TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE TRANSFORMATION TOWARDS

CARBON NEUTRALITY

Extensible carbon emission factor database: empirical study

for the Chinese construction industry
Kun Lu1 · Xueyuan Deng1,2 · Yubing Zhang3 · Xiaoyan Jiang3 · Baoquan Cheng4,5 · Vivian W. Y. Tam6

Received: 25 April 2023 / Accepted: 27 July 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
A carbon emission factor (CEF) database is required for the basis of carbon emission calculation in construction projects.
However, the default values for existing CEF databases cannot cover the complex resources involved in a construction pro-
ject. Therefore, this paper proposes a three-step method to guide the establishment of an extensible CEF database for the
construction industry, including (1) data collection and parser, (2) data extension, and (3) data encoding and storage. The
data extension mechanisms provide the supply chain perspective considering temporal issues and the accounting perspec-
tive to streamline the process. Aiming to address the lack of a comprehensive CEF database for the construction industry
in China, this paper uses this method to establish a carbon emission factor database for the Chinese construction industry
(CEFD for CCI). This database is open and free with 646 CEFs, including five parts: energy, human, material, machinery,
and greenspace. This paper provides a way for developing and less developed countries to establish an expandable CEF
database, which benefits the parser, extension, encoding, and storage of new resources, as well as computer access.

Keywords Carbon emission factor · Extendable process · Construction and building industry · Life cycle assessment ·
China

Introduction

While satisfying the social and economic needs of individ-

uals, society, and country, the construction industry has a
Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues significant impact on the environment, and its carbon emis-
sions account for about 30–40% of all industries (Cheng
* Xueyuan Deng
dengxy@sjtu.edu.cn et al. 2022a; Lu et al. 2021). The construction industry’s
poor performance of carbon emissions has been criticized
1
School of Naval Architecture, Ocean & Civil Engineering, and even labeled unsustainable (Lu et al. 2020; Shang et al.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China 2022). Reducing carbon emissions from the construction
2
Shanghai Key Laboratory for Digital Maintenance industry significantly delays climate change and improves
of Buildings and Infrastructure, School of Naval global sustainability (Goel et al. 2019; Joseph and Mustaffa
Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao
Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China 2021).
3
The carbon emission factor (CEF) is also called the car-
School of Civil Engineering, Hefei University of Technology,
Hefei 230009, China bon emission coefficient (Dias and Pooliyadda 2004; Yu
4
et al. 2014), which is defined by the Intergovernmental Panel
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University,
Changsha 410083, China
on Climate Change (IPCC) as the amount of carbon emis-
5
sion generated by unit energy during its combustion or use
Anhui BIM Engineering Center, School of Civil Engineering,
Anhui Jianzhu University, Hefei 230601, China
(Paustian et al. 2006). Carbon emissions include not only
6
carbon dioxide ­(CO2) but also other greenhouse gases, such
School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment,
Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith,
as nitrous oxide (­ N2O), methane (­ CH4), hydrofluorocarbons
NSW 2751, Australia (HFCs), and perfluorocarbon (PFCs). These greenhouse

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

gases can be collectively expressed in carbon dioxide equiv-
alent ­(CO2e) (Moungsree et al. 2022). Therefore, the CEF
is more broadly defined as the carbon dioxide equivalent
­(CO2e) emitted per unit of materials, production, mechani-
cal equipment, or process (Kono et al. 2017; Li et al. 2018).
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a methodology for sys-
tematically assessing the environmental impact of a product,
service, or process throughout its life cycle, which is often
adopted for calculating the carbon emissions of construc-
tion projects (Balasbaneh and Ramli 2020; Cheng et al.
2022b; Larsen et al. 2022; Minunno et al. 2021). According
to ISO14040 (ISO14040 2006) and ISO14044 (ISO14044
2006) guidelines, the LCA framework is divided into goal
and scope definition, life cycle inventory analysis, life cycle
impact assessment, and life cycle interpretation. The popular
goal and scope definition includes cradle-to-gate, cradle-to-
site, and cradle-to-grave (Giama and Papadopoulos 2020).
During life cycle impact assessment, life cycle inventory
data is combined with CEFs to calculate the potential impact
of global warming (Yue et al. 2022).
Dynamic life cycle assessment (DLCA) is an extension of
traditional LCA, which considers the changes and evolution
of products or processes over time, contributing to com-
prehensively assess environmental impacts (Beloin-Saint-
Pierre et al. 2020; Lueddeckens et al. 2020). In particular,
the DLCA is suitable for products and materials with large
time spans. The dynamism of DLCA involves every step of
LCA methodology, including dynamic scope, dynamic pro-
cess inventory, dynamic systems, dynamic characterization,
and dynamic weighting (Sohn et al. 2020). Among them, the
most popular form of DLCA focuses on the dynamics of the
life cycle inventory phase (Cornago et al. 2022). In building
projects, dynamic variables of DLCA include occupants and
behaviors, energy evolution, material and device degrada-
tion, carbon absorption, expected service lives, temperature
change, technological evolution, and waste recycling rates
(Su et al. 2021).
In the process of using LCA to calculate carbon emis-
sions, the core method is to multiply the resource quanti-
ties by CEFs (Yue et al. 2022), so CEF is the basic data
for carbon emission calculation (Bischof and Duffy 2022;
Wang et al. 2021). Therefore, there have been many popular
LCA databases for developed countries, such as Ecoinvent,
ELCD, GaBi, ICE, and Athena (Martínez-Rocamora et al.
2016), as seen in Table 1.
Despite the existence of a common LCA database, the
CEF database for the construction industry is still neces-
sary. Because construction projects involve a wide range of
materials, processes, and technologies due to their complex-
ity (Deng and Lu 2023), they have specific CEF character-
istics that other industrial or general CEF databases cannot
satisfy. Therefore, in addition to general databases for all
industries, Skaar et al. (2022) provided an LCA database for
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
zero-emissions neighborhoods, and Crawford et al. (2022)
created the EPiC Database for building materials. Neverthe-
less, faced with the lack of CEF databases in developing and
underdeveloped areas, Liu et al. (2015) used CEFs from the
academic literature to solve this problem. Lu et al. (2019)
also established their own CEF database from literature ref-
erences to calculate building life cycle carbon emissions.
These works show that without a CEF database, the carbon
emission assessment cannot be carried out. Furthermore,
the literature review is an effective method to form a CEF
library, but it requires a lot of time and labor.
Data extension and encoding
In the process of construction projects, design and imple-
mentation are complex activities involving a variety of
humans, materials, machinery, and plants (Joseph and
Mustaffa 2021; Lu et al. 2019), resulting in it being inevi-
table that some CEFs of resources have non-default values.
In the study of building carbon emissions by Yang et al.
(2018), the CLCD database was preferred, while ELCD
and Ecoinvent were used if some CEFs cannot be found in
the CLCD database. In fact, when default CEFs are miss-
ing, users always choose to ignore their carbon emissions
(Lu et al. 2019), leading to inaccurate calculation results.
In other words, the static CEF databases cannot handle new
resource addition, resulting in inconvenient or inaccurate
calculations without suitable default CEFs.
It is necessary to develop a mechanism for adding new
data, and it is also significant to ensure that new and old
data are unique, which can make the data to not clutter with
each other. The code, which is usually used as the primary
key of the database, ensures the standardization of database
design (Bahmani et al. 2008). Systematic coding saves much
time in classification and arrangement and also ensures the
uniqueness of data items in the database (Bahmani et al.
2008), which facilitates the linking of computer software.
Unfortunately, as with the CEF databases in Table 1, these
databases lack an open and transparent coding system.
In brief, current static CEF databases using default values
cannot cover the complex resources involved in a construc-
tion project. They lack the data extension rule and transparent
encoding rule, which made it difficult for engineers to add
a new resource and find the correct CEF, also significantly
affecting the linking of computer access (Research Gap 1).
CEF database in China
CEF databases have their characteristics according to spe-
cific countries or areas. Therefore, when a construction pro-
ject lacking its national database uses a CEF database from
another country, its result is likely to be incorrect (Martínez-
Rocamora et al. 2016). For example, Takano et al. (2014)
Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Table 1  Main popular carbon emission factor (CEF) databases

Database Tool Usable range Main category Development Main area of use Website
countries

Ecoinvent SimaPro All industries Building materials Swiss Europe and http://​www.​ecoin​vent.​
(including con- America org
struction)
ELAD SimaPro/GaBi Construction Building materials, European Union Europe http://​eplca.​jrc.​ec.​
industry transportation, and europa.​eu/​ELCD3
waste disposal
GaBi GaBi All industries Building materials USA Europe and http://​www.​gabi-​
(including con- America softw​are.​com
struction)
PlasticsEurope SimaPro/GaBi All industries Plastics and polymer Europe Europe http://​www.​plast​icseu​
materials rope.​org
ICE BEES Construction Building materials Britain Europe and http://​www.​bath.​ac.​uk
industry and energy America
Athena Athena Construction Building materials, Canada Canada, United http://​www.​athen​
industry energy, construc- States asmi.​org
tion machinery,
and waste disposal
U.S. LCI SimaPro/GaBi Manufacturing Metal, wood, and USA United States http://​www.​lcaco​
industry plastics mmons.​gov
Base Carbone – Construction Building materials French French http://​www.​basec​
industry arbone.​fr
BEDEC – Construction Building materials, Spain Spain http://​www.​itec.​es/​
industry waste disposal nouBe​dec.e/​bedec.​
aspx
CPM LCA – Construction Building materials Sweden Sweden http://​cpmda​tabase.​
industry cpm.​chalm​ers.​se/​
Start.​asp
ProBas GAMES Construction Building materials Germany Germany http://​www.​iinas.​org
industry

used five different LCA databases to compare the building
carbon emissions, and their relative difference reached 33%,
while the individual difference of some materials was up
to 183%. Islam et al. (2015) found that Athena is the most
suitable database in the USA and Canada, and Ecoinvent is
applicable to Europe. As seen from Table 1, the current CEF
databases are mainly concentrated in developed countries in
Europe and America (Salvia et al. 2021).
As one of the world’s largest carbon emitters (Gao and
Zhang 2019), China has announced achieving a carbon peak
in 2030 and carbon neutrality in 2060 (Huo et al. 2022; Sun
et al. 2022). In order to achieve the carbon goals, Sichuan Uni-
versity and IKE developed a Chinese localized LCA database,
Chinese Life Cycle Database (CLCD), nested in the eBalance
software (IKE 2022), which can analyze the environmental
impacts of products or processes. National Natural Science
Foundation of China and Tsinghua University created the Car-
bon Emission Accounts & Datasets (CEADs) (CEADs-team
2022), disclosing carbon accounting lists at the multi-scale
national level. China City Greenhouse Gas Working Group
(CityGHG) released China Products Carbon Footprint Factors
Database (CPCD) (CityGHG 2022), providing CEFs from
energy, industrial, household, and foods. These databases
show the local characteristics of China. However, these indus-
try-wide databases cannot meet the needs of carbon emission
calculation in the construction industry because construction
is a complex activity (Lu et al. 2019).
The Chinese construction industry accounts for 51% of
national carbon emissions (CABEE 2020), which harms the
carbon peak and neutrality. Chongqing University and the
China Association of Building Energy Efficiency (CABEE)
established the China Building Energy and Emissions Data-
base (CBEED) (CABEE 2022), providing operational car-
bon data for public and residential buildings at the national
and provincial levels. Southeast University established a
CEF database for buildings and implanted it into Donghe
Building Carbon Emission Calculation and Analysis Soft-
ware (DBCECAS) (Donghe 2022). These commercial CEF
databases have helped the carbon accounting of construction
projects in China.
However, like many developing and less developed coun-
tries, a systematic and comprehensive CEF database is still
scarce for the Chinese construction industry, which makes

13
 Environmental Science and Pollution Research

it inconvenient to calculate the carbon emissions of Chinese in addressing urgent climate change issues but also enriches
construction projects (Research Gap 2). academic discourse and methodological development.

Aim and innovations Methodology

Therefore, this paper aims to solve these above research gaps
by providing a method for establishing an extensible CEF
database for the construction industry. Furthermore, this
study verifies this method using China as an empirical study.
The main innovations of this study lie in the following: (1)
establishing a data extension, encoding, and storage mecha-
nism for the new resources without default CEF values and
(2) providing a free database with relatively comprehensive
CEFs for the Chinese construction industry (shown in Sup-
plementary Material).
Establishing an extensible CEF database for the Chinese
construction industry is of significant value for several rea-
sons. Firstly, the extensible LCA theory facilitates regular
updates and management of CEF databases to reflect chang-
ing technological, industrial, and environmental conditions.
In this way, the CEF database can be kept up to date, ensur-
ing the accuracy and reliability of the LCA results. Secondly,
it contributes to quantifying and comprehending construc-
tion sector-specific carbon emissions, which provides vital
empirical data for developing and validating construction
LCA models, enabling more precise forecasts and simula-
tions. Furthermore, it promotes interdisciplinary research,
uniting construction engineering, environmental science,
and computer science. Hence, such a database not only aids
This study proposes a method to establish the extensible
CEF database for the construction industry (Fig. 1), which
consists of (1) data collection and parser, (2) data extension,
and (3) data encoding and storage.
Data collection and parser
Reliable data sources are essential for developing a CEF
database, which is the key to initial data collection. Then,
this initial data should be preprocessed to standardize their
boundary range.
Initial data collection
The process of initial data collection is shown in Fig. 2. This
study uses four primary sources because they are authori-
tative, reliable, and accessible, including academic litera-
tures, national and provincial standards, industry datasets
and tools, and environmental product declarations. The date
range of these four data sources is from when they have data
records to October 2022.
1. Two international academic databases, Web of Sci-
ence and Scopus, cover most peer-reviewed literature.
In addition, in order to reflect the characteristics of the

Fig. 1  Methodology framework Step1: Step2: Step3:

to establish CEF database for Data collection and parser Data extension Data encoding and storage
the construction industry
Data Source
Data encoding
Supply chain perspective
Screening criteria    
Initial data results
Data storage
Data parser for Accounting perspective
SQLite
preprocessing
Method
CEFD for CCI

Energy 89 CEFs 118 CEFs 11 types 118 CEFs

Human 12 CEFs 12 CEFs 2 types 12 CEFs

Material 249 CEFs 256 CEFs 25 types 256 CEFs

Machinery 0 CEF 182 CEF 10 types 182 CEF

Greenspace 78 CEFs 78 CEFs 3 types 78 CEFs

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Fig. 2  Initial data collection Data Source
process
Academic literature
National and provincial standards
Industry datasets and tools
Environmental product declarations
Chinese construction industry, the three largest Chi-
nese academic databases are supplemented, including
CNKI, Wangfang, and Weipu VIP. In the literature
search process, search keywords include all resource
names involved in the Chinese Bill of Quantities stand-
ard (MOHURD 2013).
2. National and provincial construction standards of carbon
emission calculation
3. The construction part in industrial CEF datasets and
tools
4. Environmental Product Declaration (EPD)
Although the structured search process and high-quality
data sources are used to ensure reliable sources, some data
sometimes does not meet further requirements. Therefore,
several exclusion criteria are used to ensure the quality of
these data, including:
1. Reliable and transparent inventories of inputs and out-
puts for the data source
2. A clear boundary scope of resources, including spatial
and temporal boundaries definition
3. A detailed description of characteristics, such as produc-
tion location, year, material density, measurement unit,
and production process
Finally, through reliable data sources and strict screening
criteria, a total of 58 bibliographies and 428 original data
are found.
Data parser for preprocessing
After the initial data collection, these data should be parsed
for preprocessing. On the one hand, the data parser clari-
fies the spatiotemporal boundary of CEFs to ensure their
accuracy and consistency. On the other hand, the data parser
splitting these data is also a CEF extension mechanism,
which can increase the number of CEFs in the database.
An example is the CEF of electricity in coal-fired power
plants in the research of Zhao et al. (2017). Zhao et al.
(2017)’s study directly provided the CEF of 752.87 ­gCO2/
Screening criteria Initial data results
Reliable input-output inventory
58
bibliographies
Clear boundary scope
428 carbon
emission factors
Detailed characteristic description
kWh for coal combustion and 810.37 ­gCO2/kWh for the life
cycle (cradle-to-grave). By parsing the spatial boundary
of this process (Fig. 3), this study not only obtains CEFs
for coal production and transportation, plant construction,
operation, and decomposition, but also obtains the CEF of
752.87 ­gCO2/kWh for operation and 807.46 ­gCO2/kWh
from cradle-to-gate. Through the data parser mechanism,
corresponding corrections can be made for the calculation
boundary of the initial data to obtain the required CEF. Fur-
thermore, the system boundary of initial data is modified to
“cradle-to-gate” through this parser method, which is con-
sidered the default spatial boundary of CEF in this database.
The cradle-to-gate is the default system boundary in this
CEF database for the following reasons. In the construction
industry, the choice of construction site affects the distance
of material transportation, which results in the meaning and
CEF value of cradle-to-site always needing to be revised
or recalculated. Additionally, the maintenance and renova-
tion schemes are unpredictable for construction projects,
which make it difficult to calculate CEF under the cradle-
to-grave boundary. Therefore, except for the default bound-
ary (cradle-to-gate), other boundaries should be specifically
declared in the characteristics of the CEF data.
Data extension
In order to extend the CEF value of new products and materials
without default values, the data extension mechanisms are pro-
posed following the life cycle assessment (LCA) framework of
ISO14040 (ISO14040 2006) and ISO14044 (ISO14044 2006).
Under this framework, the data extension perspective includes
(1) the supply chain perspective considering temporal issues
using dynamic LCA and (2) the accounting perspective with-
out considering temporal issues using traditional LCA. More
details about comparing these two perspectives are shown in
Table 2. Although the supply chain perspective can provide
time series to reflect carbon emissions more comprehensively,
the accounting perspective is more convenient for obtaining
input-output information. The choice of these two perspectives
13

Fig. 3  Data parser for the CEF of electricity in coal-fired power plants
Table 2  Comparison of
supply chain perspective and
accounting perspective Temporal issue
Calculation process
Information requirement
Suitable application
Data source
mainly depends on the availability of information, such as
whether the user can get a supply chain with time series.
Supply chain perspective
The dynamic LCA evaluation method takes time series into
account (Lueddeckens et al. 2020), which adopts a supply
chain modeling perspective rather than an accounting per-
spective (Pigné et al. 2020). Under the DLCA guidance, the
CEF of a wood component is used as an example to illustrate
the process of dynamic data extension. The time boundary
of this timber spans from 2005 to 2021, and its dynamic data
expansion process for CEF is shown in Fig. 4.
Firstly, the goals and boundaries of extended data are
defined, which includes temporal and spatial boundaries.
Moreover, this step also defines the functional unit of the
product. For example, 1 ­m 3 is the default unit for con-
cretes, while 1 ­m2 is for tiles. The second step is life cycle
inventory analysis, which lists the life cycle input and
output processes in a time series. These inputs include
main materials that eventually remain in the product and
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Supply chain perspective Accounting perspective
Considered Not considered
Inconvenient Convenient
Sequential supply chain Inputs and outputs
With a large time span With a short time span
Supply chain systems, logistics data, Accounting records
partner information and reports, financial
systems
auxiliary materials that are essential but do not remain
finally. Furthermore, wastes should be included as out-
puts in addition to the product. Then, these input-output
resources are multiplied by the corresponding CEFs, as
shown in Formula 2. It is worth noting that the “Year”
of CEF should be matched with the temporal process. In
this step, if these CEFs of input-output resources are una-
vailable, these resources must be broken down again to
calculate their CEFs (more details are shown in “Exten-
sion, encoding, and storage”). Finally, the CEF results are
analyzed by time series for life cycle interpretation.
It is worth noting that the calculation assumptions and bound-
aries of the CEFs should be consistent with those sub-items.
If these CEFs are inconsistent with sub-items, they should be
corrected using the data parser mechanism in “Data parser for
preprocessing”. The supply chain perspective reflects two tem-
poral issues: (1) CEFs with corresponding time are dynamic,
which is multiplied by input-output resources; (2) the amount
of input-output resources is dynamic, which changes over time.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Fig. 4  Dynamic data extension of CEF from the supply chain perspective
Accounting perspective
In addition to the supply chain perspective, the static exten-
sion mechanism from the accounting perspective can be
used in specific cases which are adopted by traditional LCA
standards. As shown in Fig. 5, the accounting perspective
regards the CEF expansion process as a “black box” that
only knows the inputs and outputs but does not know the
internal structure.
A typical application of the accounting perspective is unit
conversion. When the actual units do not match the origi-
nal units, converting the CEFs to the required units is neces-
sary using the unit conversion rule as in Formula 1. In unit
conversion, the input-output resources and time series of the
production are not changed in its supply chain process. There-
fore, units can be converted directly due to the consistency of
temporal and spatial boundaries:
CEF r = UCC × CEF o (1)
In Formula 1, CEFr is the required carbon emission
factor; CEFo is the original carbon emission factor in
the default unit; UCC​ is the unit conversion factor, and
popular UCC​can be found in the UnitHelper (UnitHelper
2022). For example, the CEF of anthracite coal can be
converted from 94,440 ­kgCO2/TJ to 0.9444 k­ gCO2/MJ (1
13
 Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Fig. 5  Static data extension

of CEF from the accounting
perspective

Table 3  Calculation process of Code Name Content CEF Carbon emissions

the CEF of 400L mortar mixer
Input 020102001 Construction workers 1.389 day 3.77 ­kgCO2/day 5.236 ­CO2
010401003 Electricity 15.17 kW h 0.928 ­kgCO2/kW·h 14.078 ­CO2
Total 19.314 ­CO2/team

*Team means the mechanical performance of a mechanical device in eight hours in the Chinese construc-
tion industry

Category
Type
6
TJ = ­10 MJ). C30 concrete with CEF of 295.0 ­kgCO2e/
m 3 can be converted to 0.125 k­ gCO 2e/kg (its density is
Name
2360 kg/m3, UCC​ is 0.0004237 ­m3/kg)    
Another application of the accounting perspective is
Characteristics,
new resources within a short period of time. The process
of Fig. 4 can be simplified from the accounting perspec- Location, Year
tive to Formula 2 and Table 3. In fact, in the construction
industry, the vast majority of products and materials are Fig. 6  Data encoding rule of CEF database
manufactured in one year or less, which provides the pre-
requisite for static data expansion using traditional LCA.
Data encoding and storage
n n
∑ ∑
CEF DE = CEF in × Qin + CEF out × Qout (2) Data encoding
in=1 out=1

In Formula 2, CEFDE represents the carbon emission fac-
tor of the new resource by data extension; CEFin and CEFout
represent the carbon emission factor of input and output
resources respectively; and Qin and Qout are the quantity of
input and output resources respectively. For example, the CEF
default value of the 400-L mortar mixer cannot be found in
the initial database. This data extension method can be used
to calculate its CEF as 19.314 ­CO2/team, as shown in Table 3.
Finally, through the supply chain and accounting per-
spective, this study expands 218 CEFs, and the data samples
are expanded to 646 CEFs. These extended data are marked
as “DE (data extension)” in the Supplementary Materials.
The benefits of data encoding include (1) classing and
arranging CEFs, (2) helping users quickly find CEFs, (3)
ensuring the uniqueness of CEFs, and (4) making them
accessible for computer tools. In this study, the encoding of
CEF is a 9-digit code divided into four parts, as shown in
Fig. 6. The detailed encoding rule is as follows.
1. The first part (2-bit) is the resource category, divided
into five categories: energy, human, material, machinery,
and greenspace.
2. The 2-bit code second part means the type of resources,
which is the second category classification.

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research

3. The third part (2-bit code) expresses the specific name
of resources.
4. The fourth part is a 3-bit code, which records character-
istics, location, year, and other information.
Taking “01 Energy” as an example, its detailed coding
system is shown in Table 4. According to this encoding
rule, the code of anthracite coal with kg as a unit pro-
duced in 2019 is 010101002.
Data storage
After the data encoding, this unique code is set to the pri-
mary key. At the same time, the type, name, characteristics,
location, year, unit, amount, and reference are stored in
the database along with it, as shown in Table 5. The type,
name, unit, and amount are necessary for data records,
so they are restricted to non-null. This study creates the
database using the small, fast, and high-reliability SQL
database engine, SQLite. Its database file (DB file) can be
opened with other database software, such as SQL Server,
MySQL, and Oracle. Programming languages, including
Python, C++, JAVA, and others can also call it.
Results
Based on this methodology, this study establishes a carbon
emission factor database for the Chinese construction indus-
try (CEFD for CCI), which is divided into five parts: energy,
human, material, machinery, and greenspace. The complete
and detailed database can be found in the Supplementary
Materials. For the convenience of readers, the data is pre-
sented in charts of scatter plots (Figs. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and
13). In these charts, the number of scatter plots represents
the number of data, and the density expresses the centralized
or decentralized degree of data. The close cluster of data
sample points indicates that their CEFs are similar, while
some CEFs show a relatively large range due to their dif-
ferent characteristics. For example, solar energy has a large
range of CEFs from 1.3~9.3 × 1­ 0−2 ­kgCO2e/kW h because
of the different characteristics of local sunlight intensity and
conversion efficiency of batteries.
Energy
Depending on the type of energy, CEFs are dispersive (see
Fig. 7). Among them, CEFs of solid fuel with TJ as a unit
vary from 0.94 × 1­ 05 to 1.12 × ­105 ­kgCO2/TJ, while its

Table 4  Detailed encoding First level Second level Third level Fourth level
system of “01 Energy” and
description 01 Energy 0101 Solid fuel 010101 Anthracite coal 010101001 In TJ, 2019
02 Human 0102 Liquid fuel 010102 Bituminous coal 010101002 In kg, 2019
03 Material 0103 Gas fuel 010103 Lignite 010101003 In kg, 2007
04 Machinery 0104 Electric power 010104 Washed coal
05 Greenspace 0105 Biomass power 010105 Other coal washing
0106 Hydro power 010106 Type coal
0107 Wind power 010107 Coke
0108 Geothermal power 010108 Other coking products
0109 Nuclear power
0110 Solar power
0111 Waste power

Table 5  Data storage of CEF Field Type (length) Primary key Non-null Unique Example
database
Code Text (9) √ √ √ 040605002
Type Text (50) – √ – Concrete processing
Name Text (50) – √ – Mortar mixer
Characteristics Text (300) – – – Mixing drum capacity 400L
Location Text (50) – – – China
Year Integer (4) – – – 2019
Unit Text (20) – √ – kgCO2/team
Amount Real (10) – √ – 19.314
Ref. Text (50) – – – AE (accounting extension)

13
 Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Fig. 7  Distribution of CEFs for Carbon Emission Factor

energies Waste power
(kgCO2e/kg)
Solar power
(×10-2kgCO2e/kW·h)
Nuclear power
(×10-2kgCO2e/kW·h)
Geothermal power
(×10-2kgCO2e/kW·h)
Wind power
(×10-2kgCO2e/kW·h)
Hydor power
(×10-2kgCO2e/kW·h)
Biomass power
(kgCO2e/kg)
Electric power
(kgCO2/kW·h)
Gas fuel
(kgCO2/m3)
Liquid fuel
(kgCO2/kg)
Solid fuel
(kgCO2/kg)

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Fig. 8  Distribution of CEFs for Carbon Emission Factor

humans
Resident
(×10 kgCO2/day·room)

Labor
kgCO2/day

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

CEFs range from 1.518 to 3.069 ­kgCO2/kg. The figure for
liquid fuel is distributed in 0.62~0.99 × 1­ 05 ­kgCO2/TJ and
3.105~3.209 ­kgCO2/kg, and that of electric power disperses
in 0.714~1.246 ­kgCO2/kW h. In contrast to these fuels,
renewable energies, including hydro power, wind power,
geothermal power, nuclear power, and solar power, their
average CEF is nearly 0.01 ­kgCO2e/kW h, far lower than
fossil energy. Therefore, it is necessary to develop renewable
energies and apply them to the construction industry.
Human
The contribution of humans to carbon emissions of construc-
tion projects is relatively small (Lu et al. 2019), so their
data sample is also relatively few, as shown in Fig. 8. For
labor, the CEFs of highway workers range from 1.35 to 2.90
­kgCO2/day according to their working intensity, and the CEF
of construction workers is 3.77 ­kgCO2/day. In terms of resi-
dents, if only considering respiration, both urban residents
and rural residents are 0.179 k­ gCO2/day. Considering the
energy consumption, waste release, and refrigerant leak-
age in hotel accommodations, their CEFs reach 25.29~77.3
­kgCO2e/night room. Notably, the CEF boundary of hotel
accommodation conflicts with the energy consumption in
the building operation, so be careful not to double calculate
when summarizing the carbon emissions of buildings.
Material
Materials contribute a lot to the carbon emissions of con-
struction projects, and their CEFs are relatively more in the
database because of numerous research. It can be divided into
primary materials (Fig. 9) and finished materials (Fig. 10).
Primary materials are raw materials that are transported
directly to construction sites and waiting for further pro-
cesses, including concrete, cement, lime, mortar, brick, steel,
copper, aluminum, magnesium, water, aggregate, wood,
plastics, glass, ceramics, asphalt, and gypsum. Concrete
and steel have a large amount of data because they are the
most used materials in the construction industry. The CEFs

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Fig. 9  Distribution of CEFs for Carbon Emission Factor

primary materials
Gypsum
(×10-1 kgCO2e/kg)

Asphalt
(×10-1 kgCO2e/kg)

Ceramic
×10 kgCO2/m2)

Glass
(kgCO2/kg)

Plastic
(kgCO2e/kg)

Wood
(×102 kgCO2e/m3)

Aggregate
(kgCO2/m3)

Water
(kgCO2/m3)

Magnesium
(×10 kgCO2/kg)

Aluminum
(×10 kgCO2/kg)

Copper
(×10 kgCO2/kg)

Steel
(kgCO2e/kg)

Brick
(×102 kgCO2/m3)

Mortar
(×102 kgCO2/m3)

Lime
(×10-1 kgCO2/kg)

Cement
(×10-1 kgCO2/kg)

Concrete
(×102 kgCO2/m3)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

of commercial precast concrete, the most common concrete
in China, range from 239.19 to 644.85 k­ gCO2/m3 according
to its compressive strength from C20 to C60, while those of
renewable concrete are 210.1~255.6 ­kgCO2/m3 (C20~C30).
It indicates that using renewable concrete can reduce the car-
bon emissions of construction projects. However, producing
high-strength renewable concretes (more than C30) is still
challenging, so their data is currently unavailable. For steel,
another significant material resulting in climate change, its
CEF exceeds 2 ­kgCO2e/kg, while the CEF of recyclable steel
ranges from 0.480 to 1.650 k­ gCO2e/kg, which can signifi-
cantly improve the low-carbon performance of the construc-
tion industry. In addition, using wood instead of reinforced
concrete is also a good strategy because the CEF of wood
ranges from 15 to 543 ­kgCO2e/m3.
In addition to the above materials, other materials also
contribute to greenhouse gases in the construction industry.
Depending on their different level and production process,
CEFs of cement range from 0.305 to 0.940 k­ gCO2/kg; CEFs
of brick from 23 to 341 ­kgCO2/m3; CEFs of water from 0.11
to 4.81 ­kgCO2/m3; CEFs of glass from 0.83 to 1.48 k­ gCO2/kg.
Finished materials are prefabricated parts produced in
factories and do not need to be further reprocessed on con-
struction sites. There are six mainly finished materials in this
database, such as plate, door, window, floor, fastener, and
wire. According to the differences in production processes
and specific raw materials, the CEFs of finished materials
are various. CEFs of the plate are from 8 to 432 ­kgCO2e/
m2; CEFs of the door vary from 10.45 to 89.05 ­kgCO2/m2;
CEFs range from 121 to 254 ­kgCO2e/m2 for the window. It
is worth noting that CEFs of finished materials have a close

13
 Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Fig. 10  Distribution of CEFs Carbon Emission Factor

for finished materials
Wire
(×10-1 kgCO2e/kg)

Fastener
(kgCO2/ten)

Floor
(×102 kgCO2e/m3)

Window
(×102 kgCO2e/m2)

Door
(×10 kgCO2/m2)

Plate
(×102 kgCO2e/m2)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Fig. 11  Distribution of CEFs Carbon Emission Factor

for transportation machinery
Vertical transport
(×102 kgCO2/team)

On-site transport
(×102 kgCO2/team)

Off-site transport
(×10-1 kgCO2e/(t·km))

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Fig. 12  Distribution of CEFs Carbon Emission Factor

for processing machinery General
processing

Wood
processing

Steel
processing

Concrete
processing

Water
processing

Earthwork
processing

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Carbon Emission Factor (kgCO2/team)

relationship with the characteristics of manufacturers, which floor type, whose CEF is 3000 k­ gCO2e/m3, largely over the
leads to their wide range. In addition, extreme data of special usual range of the floor (74~750 ­kgCO2e/m3).
materials is not analyzed in Fig. 10, such as PVC floor in the

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Fig. 13  Distribution of CEFs
for carbon sink of greenspace
Plant
Plant area
Green land
-30 -25
Carbon Emission Factor (kgCO2/(m ·y))
Machinery
This database provides comprehensive CEFs for construc-
tion machinery, including three types of transport machin-
ery (Fig. 11) and seven processing machinery (Fig. 12). It
is worth noting that these mechanical CEFs only consider
the human and energy consumption on site and do not
include the carbon emissions generated by the machinery
production. In other words, these CEFs use the “gate to
gate” boundary because the carbon emissions of produc-
tion machinery are included in the carbon accounting of
the manufacturing industry rather than the construction
industry. The CEFs of off-site transport range from 0.010
to 0.334 ­kgCO2e/(t km); the CEFs of on-site transport are
from 19.35 to 200.75 k­ gCO2/team; and the CEFs for verti-
cal transport vary from 26.69 to 274.32 ­kgCO2/team.
In this paper, the processing machinery is divided into
six types: earthwork processing, water processing, con-
crete processing, steel processing, wood processing, and
general processing, as seen in Fig. 12. The scatter pat-
tern with a big variance in Fig. 12 indicates that the CEFs
of various construction machinery, especially earthwork
and water processing, vary considerably. For example, the
CEFs of earthwork processing range from 15.40 to 552.97
­kgCO2/team; those of water processing are 5.29–329.24
­kgCO2/team; those of concrete processing are 7.99~341.47
­kgCO2/team; those of steel processing are 6.22~143.50
­kgCO2/team.
Greenspace
Greenspace is the carbon sink for the construction industry.
Figure 13 shows that the CEFs of green land and plant are
relatively concentrated, while those of plant area are uncon-
centrated. According to the different planting densities,
CEFs of plant areas vary from − 0.34 to − 27.50 ­kgCO2/
(m2·year), in which woody plant areas provide more signifi-
cant carbon reduction than herbaceous plant areas.
Carbon Emission Factor
-20 -15 -10 -5 0
2
Discussion
The extensible LCA database overcomes the constraints of
default CEF values. This allows a construction project to add
specific CEFs to the database to achieve a comprehensive
carbon emission assessment. No matter how unfamiliar or
unique a product is, its CEF can be calculated through this
data extension rule. And its calculation process is clearly
stored in this database to facilitate subsequent verification.
In addition, this study provides a valuable reference for
all developing and less developed countries to establish their
own CEF databases for their construction industry. Aiming
at the lack of a comprehensive CEF database in the Chi-
nese construction industry, the CEFD for CCI is established,
which provides a basis for the carbon emission calculation
of construction projects. Since the LCA database is essen-
tial for energy and carbon audits for construction projects
(Günkaya et al. 2021), this database also helps the Chinese
construction industry with carbon audits and trading.
Extension, encoding, and storage
The data extension mechanism provides a method for new
resource supplements. As shown in Fig. 14, if the desired
resource exists in the current database, it can be called
directly to obtain its CEF. If not, this resource is regarded as
a new resource and decomposed into sub-resources, which
go through the process until all sub-resources exist in the
current database. The CEFs of these sub-resources are called
and multiplied by consumption quantities to obtain the CEF
of new resources (Fig. 2 and Table 3 for an example). Then,
this new resource is coded through the data encoding rules
(Fig. 6) and stored in the CEF library through data storage
rules (Table 5). This multi-level data extension mechanism
solves the problem that the CEF database is static, which
allows new data to be added dynamically and continuously.
In other words, CEFD for CCI will include not only 646
CEFs in the future but also unlimited potential for boundless
data samples. In addition, users can also add CEFs by these
13

Fig. 14  Data extension, encod-
Start
ing, and storage rule in extensi-
ble database application
Resource required
Whether exist
in existing
database
Yes
Call data
CEF of
resource
End
mechanisms that meet the characteristics of construction
companies or projects.
The data encoding not only ensures the uniqueness of
CEF in the extensible database but also guarantees the
availability and stability of the link to computer software
(Zhang and Dong 2019), helping database storage and
access. In other words, the unique code of CEF makes the
database feasible to link with information technologies,
such as building information modeling (BIM), geographic
information system (GIS), or Internet of Things (IoT) (Lu
et al. 2023; Tam et al. 2022). Through the joint applica-
tion of data extension, encoding, and storage rules, CEFD
for CCI becomes expandable to deal with the process of
construction projects.
Data selection priority
When this database is extended or applied, the choice of
CEF is inevitable. When choosing among conflicting data
from different sources, the following principles should be
followed in turn to prioritize CEF selection: (1) Boundary
priority principle: CEFs with the same or similar boundary
should be preferred. (2) Regional data priority principle:
The national data is prior to other countries, the regional
data is prior to the national average data, and the enterprise
data is superior to the regional data. Therefore, when fac-
ing products or materials with environmental product dec-
laration (EPD), the EPD should be given priority (Božiček
et al. 2021; Del Rosario et al. 2021). (3) Chronological pri-
ority principle: Outdated CEFs cannot represent the actual
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Analyze and
disassemble
No resource
Sub-resource 1 ... Sub-resource 2 ... Sub-resource n
Calculate CEF by assembly
CEFD for CCI
Data encoding rule
Code
Data storage rule
Store data
situation at present, so data selection should reduce the inter-
val time. (4) Authoritative data priority principle: Selection
priority follows the order of national standards, national
statistical data, and peer-reviewed journals.
Taking the choice of electricity CEF for example, when
calculating the carbon emissions of a building in Shanghai
Province in 2021, there is no perfect CEF correspondence
in the database. Firstly, the system boundary is identified
as “cradle-to-gate”; these CEFs meeting this boundary are
listed in Table 6. Secondly, considering the regional pri-
ority, Shanghai belongs to East China, so 010401003 and
010401012 are selected, while others are excluded. Then,
according to the chronological principle, 010401012 is
finally selected because 2021 is closer to 2019.
Comparison with other databases
In order to find gaps and make recommendations, the CEFD
for CCI is compared with international databases. Currently,
most international CEF databases only focus on construction
materials (Martínez-Rocamora et al. 2016), so this study
only compares this part. In order to ensure uniformity of
comparison, the most widely used, typical, and authoritative
CEF is selected from the range of the CEF database. In addi-
tion, because the default measurement unit for materials is
not uniform among countries (for example, the standard unit
for concrete in China is m­ 3 (MOHURD 2013)), this study
uniformly converts all CEFs to k­ gCO2/kg by unit conversion
rule in “Data extension” to build a comparison basis.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Table 6  CEFs for electricity

Code Type Name Location Year Unit Amount

010401001 Electric power Electricity Beijing, Tianjin, Hebei, Shanxi, Shandong, western Inner Mongolia 2011 kgCO2/kW·h 1.246
provinces
010401002 Electric power Electricity Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjiang and eastern Inner Mongolia provinces 2011 kgCO2/kW·h 1.096
010401003 Electric power Electricity Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui and Fujian provinces 2011 kgCO2/kW·h 0.928
010401004 Electric power Electricity Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Chongqing provinces 2011 kgCO2/kW·h 0.801
010401005 Electric power Electricity Shaanxi, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia, Xinjiang provinces 2011 kgCO2/kW·h 0.977
010401006 Electric power Electricity Guangdong, Guangxi, Yunnan and Guizhou provinces 2011 kgCO2/kW·h 0.714
010401007 Electric power Electricity Hainan provinces 2011 kgCO2/kW·h 0.917
010401008 Electric power Electricity China average 2019 kgCO2/kW·h 0.6448
010401009 Electric power Electricity Northeast China 2019 kgCO2/kW·h 0.8406
010401010 Electric power Electricity North China 2019 kgCO2/kW·h 0.8952
010401011 Electric power Electricity Northwest China 2019 kgCO2/kW·h 0.6295
010401012 Electric power Electricity East China 2019 kgCO2/kW·h 0.6496
010401013 Electric power Electricity Central China 2019 kgCO2/kW·h 0.4626
010401014 Electric power Electricity Southern China 2019 kgCO2/kW·h 0.4130

Figure 15 lists the comparison results of six materials in
different CEF libraries. In Fig. 15, concrete, steel, expanded
polystyrene, and polyvinyl chloride are similar to other inter-
national data, indicating that China has roughly reached the
international average level in these construction materials’
manufacturing. In addition, compared with foreign data-
bases (such as GaBi and Ecoinvent), CEFs of this database
are closer to the results of other Chinese databases (CLCD,
CPCD, Donghe), which proves that CEF databases have
regional characteristics.
It is worth noting that the CEF of aluminum and ceramic
brick is higher than that of developed countries. In Fig. 15c,
the aluminum reaches 20.9 k­ gCO2/kg, but in fact, the CEF
of renewable aluminum is 0.72 k­ gCO2e/kg in the Chinese
construction industry (Zhang et al. 2016), which is close to
the level of developed countries. Therefore, it is very impor-
tant to increase the proportion of renewable aluminum in
the Chinese aluminum industry. Another anomaly value lies
in ceramic brick (Fig. 15f). Compared with these popular
brick materials, such as clay bricks, sintered bricks, and non-
sintered bricks (Liu et al. 2022; Zhang et al. 2020), there is
no large-scale application of ceramic bricks in China, which
may be a potential reason for the highest value.
Compared with CEF databases of developed countries,
the CEFs of popular materials in China are similar. In con-
trast, the CEFs of uncommon materials are higher than those
of developed countries. It is likely the season why the pace
of the 2030 carbon peak and 2060 carbon neutrality in China
is slower than developed countries (Sun et al. 2022). Like
China, it is not good that the performance of expanded poly-
styrene and polyvinyl chloride in the Spanish BEDEC data-
base was due to the 2050 plan for carbon neutrality in Spain
(Blazquez et al. 2021). Effective low-carbon measures are
keys to narrowing the gap between developed countries and
developing countries, including clean energy, low-carbon
materials, low-carbon machinery, carbon sinks, green pro-
curement, carbon tax, and carbon trading in the construction
industry (Luo et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2020).
Application case
Compared with the general LCA database in other countries,
the CEFD for CCI is suited for Chinese construction projects
due to the following characteristics:
1. Data localization: This database is compiled based on
China’s national conditions, so it satisfies the actual situ-
ation of Chinese construction projects
2. Data industrialization: The construction industry-spe-
cific database provides a fitted boundary for the con-
struction process. Using this database in construction
projects can increase the accuracy, reliability, and con-
fidence in the assessment results.
The assessment method for using this database to cal-
culate the carbon emissions of construction projects is as
follows. This resource-level assessment method requires the
number of resources consumed by a construction project,
which is used to multiply by CEFs in this database:
n
∑
LCCE = CEi = CEA + CEB + CEC (3)
i=1

13
 Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Fig. 15  Comparison of CEFs

for some materials in different
databases

a) CEFs of concrete (kgCO2/kg) b) CEFs of steel (kgCO2/kg)

c) CEFs of aluminum (kgCO2/kg) d) CEFs of expanded polystyrene (kgCO2/kg)

e) CEFs of polyvinyl chloride (kgCO2/kg) f) CEFs of ceramic brick (kgCO2/kg)

n
∑ consumption, including energy, human, material, machinery,
CEi = CEF i × Qi = CEF e × Qe + CEF h × Qh and greenspace.
(4)
i=1
In order to verify the feasibility of the CEFD for CCI,
+ CEF mt × Qmt + CEF mc × Qmc + CEF g × Qg a hospital building with an operational life of 50 years is
used as a case study. The hospital, with a floor area of 6367
In Formula 3, LCCE, CEA, CEB, and CEC are the carbon
­m2, is a public building with a reinforced concrete frame
emissions from the whole life cycle, production and con-
system located in the hot summer and cold winter zone in
struction (A1–A5), use (B1–B7), and end-of-life (C1–C4)
China. In the detailed design stage of this case building,
stage, respectively, which are recommended by EN15978
five types of resources can be exported through the building
(2011). In Formula 4, CEFi represents the carbon emis-
information modeling, and these resources are matched to
sion factor in CEFD for CCI, and Qi represents the resource
the CEFD for CCI. By using this database, the life cycle
carbon emissions of this building are 40,102.9 t­ CO2e. The

13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Table 7  Calculation result of the case building using CEFD for CCI
Stage Energy ­(tCO2e) Human ­(tCO2e) Material ­(tCO2e) Machinery Greenspace ­(tCO2e) Total ­(tCO2e)
­(tCO2e)

Production and con- 0 34.47 3053.30 79.12 0 3,166.9

struction (A1-A5)
Use (B1-B7) 743.9*50 0.28 90.12 1.08 -11.9*50 36,691.5
End-of-life (C1-C4) 0 3.77 0 240.75 0 244.6
Total ­(tCO2e) 37195.0 38.5 3143.4 320.9 -595.0 40,102.9

future directions. Another direction is interworking the CEF

database with other computer tools, such as linking the CEF
database with BIM software to form a more intelligent car-
bon emission calculation tool. Finally, other environmental
impacts, such as energy consumption and water consump-
tion, are also required for LCA assessment (Cheng et al.
2022a; Lu et al. 2021). Therefore, the methodology of this
research should be applied to other environmental impacts
to build a comprehensive LCA database.
A
Like other popular databases, the CEFD for CCI is a
B
resource-level database that requires detailed resource
C plans or practices provided by construction projects. Unfor-
Total tunately, in the early planning stage of a construction pro-
ject, only primary information can be provided, such as floor
Energy Human Material Machinery Greenspace
areas (Lu et al. 2023). Primary information requires a CEF
database taking functional areas as units, which is a research
Fig. 16  Proportions of carbon emissions of the case building using
CEFD for CCI direction in the future.

carbon emissions of energy, human, material, machinery,

and greenspace are 37,195.0 t­CO2e, 38.5 t­CO2e, 3,143.4
­tCO2e, 320.9 t­CO2e, and − 595.0 t­CO2e respectively, as
shown in Table 7 and Fig. 16. This case study’s detailed
methodology and calculation process can be found in the
reference (Zhang et al. 2022).
Limitations and future research
There are still some limitations in this study. In this data-
base, some units of CEFs are ­CO2 while some are ­CO2e,
which is caused by the inconsistent measurement ranges of
original data (De Wolf et al. 2017). In future research, the
measurement unit should be unified. Furthermore, in the
horizontal comparison of various CEF databases, the defini-
tion of boundary range for material is different in different
databases (De Wolf et al. 2017; Martínez-Rocamora et al.
2016), resulting in different data meanings, which may lead
to deviation in comparison results. Therefore, this study sug-
gests all countries form a unified boundary definition.
Currently, many developing and underdeveloped coun-
tries still lack the CEF database for their construction indus-
try (Martínez-Rocamora et al. 2016), which is one of the
Conclusion
This paper provided a methodology for the construction industry
to create an extensible carbon emission factor (CEF) database to
address the problem that default values of CEF databases cannot
cover the complex resources involved in a construction project.
This method includes (1) data collection and parser, (2) data
extension, and (3) data encoding and storage. The data parser
mechanism can decompose and preprocess the initial CEF data
to unify its default system boundary as “cradle-to-gate.” The
data extension method provides not only the supply chain per-
spective considering temporal issues but also accounting per-
spectives to simplify this process. Also, the structured encoding
system ensures the uniqueness and programmability of CEFs in
computer storage. Moreover, this methodology provides valu-
able references for all developing and underdeveloped countries
that lack the CEF database for the construction industry.
Through applying this methodology in China, a giant
lacking a comprehensive CEF database, the CEFD for CCI
is established, a publicly free database with 646 CEFs for
the construction industry, including energy, human, material,
machinery, and greenspace. After further discussing how to

13

prioritize data in conflicting data resources, this database is
compared with international databases to find gaps and make
recommendations. Then, this database is illustrated with a
hospital building to verify its feasibility. The CEF database
in this paper lays a foundation for the carbon emission calcu-
lation, audit, and trading for Chinese construction projects.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 11356-0​ 23-2​ 9092-6.
Author contribution Kun Lu: writing — original draft, conceptual-
ization, methodology, validation, investigation. Xueyuan Deng: con-
ceptualization, writing — review and editing, supervision, project
administration, funding acquisition. Yubing Zhang: software, formal
analysis, investigation, data curation, visualization. Xiaoyan Jiang:
writing — review and editing. Baoquan Cheng: writing — review and
editing, funding acquisition. Vivian W. Y. Tam: writing — review and
editing, supervision.
Funding This work was supported by the Science and Technology
Commission of Shanghai Municipality (No. 21DZ1204600) and BIM
Engineering Center of Anhui Province (No. AHBIM2021KF01)
Data availability All data of this study are openly available in this
published article and its supplementary material files.
Declarations
Ethical approval Not applicable.
Consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication Not applicable.
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Bahmani AH, Naghibzadeh M, Bahmani B (2008) Automatic database
normalization and primary key generation. Can Conf Electr Com-
put Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​CCECE.​2008.​45644​86
Balasbaneh AT, Ramli MZ (2020) A comparative life cycle assess-
ment (LCA) of concrete and steel-prefabricated prefinished
volumetric construction structures in Malaysia. Environ Sci
Pollut Res 27(34):43186–43201. https:// ​ d oi. ​ o rg/ ​ 1 0. ​ 1 007/​
s11356-​020-​10141-3
Beloin-Saint-Pierre D, Albers A, Hélias A, Tiruta-Barna L, Fantke P,
Levasseur A, Benetto E, Benoist A, Collet P (2020) Addressing
temporal considerations in life cycle assessment. Sci Total Envi-
ron 743:140700. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2020.​140700
Bischof J, Duffy A (2022) Life-cycle assessment of non-domestic
building stocks: a meta-analysis of current modelling methods.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 153:111743. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.r​ ser.​
2021.​111743
Blazquez J, Martin-Moreno JM, Perez R, Ruiz J (2021) Aiming for
carbon neutrality: which environmental taxes does Spain need by
2030? Econ Energy Environ Policy 10(2). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.5​ 547/​
2160-​5890.​10.2.​JBLZ
Božiček D, Kunič R, Košir M (2021) Interpreting environmental impacts
in building design: application of a comparative assertion method in
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
the context of the EPD scheme for building products. J Clean Prod
279:123399. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2020.​123399
CABEE (2020) China Building Energy Consumption Annual Report
2020. China Association of Building Energy Efficiency, Beijing,
China https://​24959​527.​s21i.​faiusr.​com/​61/​ABUIA​BA9GA​Agu-
JHP-​wUozL​XhgwM.​pdf
CABEE. (2022). China Building Energy and Emissions Database.
http://​www.​cbeed.​cn/#/​calcu​late.
CEADs-team. (2022). Carbon Emission Accounts & Datasets
(CEADs). https://​w ww.​c eads.​n et.​c n/. https://​d oi.​o rg/​h ttps://​
www.​ceads.​net.​cn/
Cheng B, Huang J, Lu K, Li J, Gao G, Wang T, Chen H (2022a)
BIM-enabled life cycle assessment of concrete formwork waste
reduction through prefabrication. Sustain Energy Technol
Assess 53:102449. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​seta.​2022.​102449
Cheng B, Lu K, Li J, Chen H, Luo X, Shafique M (2022b) Com-
prehensive assessment of embodied environmental impacts
of buildings using normalized environmental impact factors.
J Clean Prod 334:130083. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 016/j.​j clep​ro.​
2021.​130083
CityGHG (2022) China Products Carbon Footprint Factors Database
(CPCFFD). China City Greenhouse Gas Working Group http://​
lca.​cityg​hg.​com/
Cornago S, Tan YS, Brondi C, Ramakrishna S, Low JSC (2022) Sys-
tematic literature review on dynamic life cycle inventory: towards
Industry 4.0 applications. Sustainability 14(11):Article 6464.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su141​16464
Crawford RH, Stephan A, Prideaux F (2022) The EPiC database:
hybrid embodied environmental flow coefficients for construc-
tion materials. Resour Conserv Recycl 180:106058. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​resco​nrec.​2021.​106058
De Wolf C, Pomponi F, Moncaster A (2017) Measuring embodied
carbon dioxide equivalent of buildings: a review and critique of
current industry practice. Energy Build 140:68–80. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​enbui​ld.​2017.​01.​075
Del Rosario P, Palumbo E, Traverso M (2021) Environmental product dec-
larations as data source for the environmental assessment of buildings
in the context of level(S) and dgnb: How feasible is their adoption?
Sustainability 13(11):6143. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su131​16143
Deng X, Lu K (2023) Multi-level assessment for embodied carbon of
buildings using multi-source industry foundation classes. J Build
Eng 72:106705. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jobe.​2023.​106705
Dias WPS, Pooliyadda SP (2004) Quality based energy contents and car-
bon coefficients for building materials: a systems approach. Energy
29(4):561–580. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​energy.​2003.​10.​001
Donghe. (2022). Donghe Building Carbon Emission Calculation and
Analysis Software. https://​seuicc.​com/​carbo​n/#/​login?​redir​ect=%​
2Fhome.
EN15978. (2011). Sustainability of construction works - assessment
of environmental performance of buildings - calculation method.
European Committee for Standardization. https://​stand​ards.​iteh.​
ai/​catal​og/​stand​ards/​cen/​62c22​cef-​5666-​4719-​91f9-​c21cb​6aa0a​
b3/​en-​15978-​2011
Gao Y, Zhang M (2019) The measure of technical efficiency of Chi-
na's provinces with carbon emission factor and the analysis of the
influence of structural variables. Struct Chang Econ Dyn 49:120–
129. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​strue​co.​2018.​11.​005
Giama E, Papadopoulos AM (2020) Benchmarking carbon footprint
and circularity in production processes: the case of stonewool and
extruded polysterene. J Clean Prod 257:120559. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2020.​120559
Goel A, Ganesh LS, Kaur A (2019) Sustainability integration in the
management of construction projects: a morphological analysis of
over two decades’ research literature. J Clean Prod 236:117676.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2019.​117676
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Günkaya Z, Özkan A, Banar M (2021) The effect of energy-saving
options on environmental performance of a building: a combina-
tion of energy audit–life cycle assessment for a university build-
ing. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(7):8822–8832. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s11356-​020-​11141-z
Huo T, Ma Y, Xu L, Feng W, Cai W (2022) Carbon emissions in Chi-
na's urban residential building sector through 2060: a dynamic
scenario simulation. Energy 254:124395. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​
1016/j.​energy.​2022.​124395
IKE. (2022). Chinese Life Cycle Database (CLCD). https://​www.​
ike-​global.​com/#/​produ​cts-2/​chine​se-​lca-​datab​ase-​clcd.
Islam H, Jollands M, Setunge S (2015) Life cycle assessment and
life cycle cost implication of residential buildings - a review.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 42:129–140. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
rser.​2014.​10.​006
ISO14040. (2006). Environmental management — life cycle assess-
ment — principles and framework. International Organization
for Standardization. https://​doi.​org/​https://​www.​iso.​org/​stand​
ard/​37456.​html
ISO14044. (2006). Environmental management — life cycle assess-
ment — requirements and guidelines. International Organiza-
tion for Standardization. https://​doi.​org/​https://​www.​iso.​org/​
stand​ard/​38498.​html
Joseph VR, Mustaffa NK (2021) Carbon emissions management in
construction operations: a systematic review. Eng, Constr Archit
Manag. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​ECAM-​04-​2021-​0318
Kono J, Ostermeyer Y, Wallbaum H (2017) The trends of hourly car-
bon emission factors in Germany and investigation on relevant
consumption patterns for its application. Int J Life Cycle Assess
22(10):1493–1501. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11367-​017-​1277-z
Larsen VG, Tollin N, Sattrup PA, Birkved M, Holmboe T (2022)
What are the challenges in assessing circular economy for the
built environment? A literature review on integrating LCA, LCC
and S-LCA in life cycle sustainability assessment, LCSA. J Build
Eng 50:104203. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jobe.​2022.​104203
Li Q, Wen B, Wang G, Cheng J, Zhong W, Dai T, Liang L, Han Z
(2018) Study on calculation of carbon emission factors and
embodied carbon emissions of iron-containing commodities in
international trade of China. J Clean Prod 191:119–126. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2018.​04.​224
Liu S, Meng X, Tam C (2015) Building information modeling based
building design optimization for sustainability. Energy Build
105:139–153. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enbui​ld.​2015.​06.​037
Liu W, He D, Geng T, Peng Z, Mou Z, Li M (2022) Comparative
life cycle assessment of cement, sintered bricks and non-sintered
bricks manufacturing using water-based drilling cuttings from
shale gas production in the Sichuan Basin, China. J Environ Man-
age 314:115135. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2022.​115135
Lu K, Deng X, Jiang X, Cheng B, Tam VWY (2023) A review on life
cycle cost analysis of buildings based on building information
modeling. J Civ Eng Manag 29(3):268–288. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3846/​jcem.​2023.​18473
Lu K, Jiang X, Tam VWY, Li M, Wang H, Xia B, Chen Q (2019)
Development of a carbon emissions analysis framework using
building information modeling and life cycle assessment for the
construction of hospital projects. Sustainability 11(22):6274.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su112​26274
Lu K, Jiang X, Yu J, Tam VWY, Skitmore M (2021) Integration of life
cycle assessment and life cycle cost using building information
modeling: a critical review. J Clean Prod 285:125438. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2020.​125438
Lu W, Tam VWY, Chen H, Du L (2020) A holistic review of research
on carbon emissions of green building construction industry. Eng,
Constr Archit Manag 27(5):1065–1092. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​
ECAM-​06-​2019-​0283
Lueddeckens S, Saling P, Guenther E (2020) Temporal issues in life
cycle assessment—a systematic review. Int J Life Cycle Asses
25(8):1385–1401. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11367-​020-​01757-1
Luo W, Zhang Y, Gao Y, Liu Y, Shi C, Wang Y (2021) Life cycle car-
bon cost of buildings under carbon trading and carbon tax system
in China. Sustain Cities Soc 66:102509. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
scs.​2020.​102509
Martínez-Rocamora A, Solís-Guzmán J, Marrero M (2016) LCA
databases focused on construction materials: a review. Renew
Sust Energ Rev 58:565–573. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2015.​
12.​243
Minunno R, O'Grady T, Morrison GM, Gruner RL (2021) Investigat-
ing the embodied energy and carbon of buildings: a systematic
literature review and meta-analysis of life cycle assessments.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 143:110935. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
rser.​2021.​110935
MOHURD. (2013). GB50500-2013 Code of bills of quantities and
valuation for construction works. Ministry of Housing and
Urban-Rural Development of the People s Republic of China.
https://​doi.​org/​https://​www.​mohurd.​gov.​cn/​gongk​ai/​fdzdg​knr/​
tzgg/​201212/​20121​231_​224556.​html
Moungsree S, Neamhom T, Polprasert S, Patthanaissaranukool W
(2022) Carbon footprint and life cycle costing of maize produc-
tion in Thailand with temporal and geographical resolutions. Int
J Life Cycle Asses. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11367-​022-​02021-4
Paustian, K., Ravindranath, N. H., Amstel, A. V. (2006). 2006 IPCC
guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume
4 Agriculture, forestry and other land use. Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. https://​www.​ipcc-​nggip.​iges.​or.​jp/​
public/​2006gl/​index.​html.
Pigné Y, Gutiérrez TN, Gibon T, Schaubroeck T, Popovici E, Shi-
mako AH, Benetto E, Tiruta-Barna L (2020) A tool to opera-
tionalize dynamic LCA, including time differentiation on
the complete background database. Int J Life Cycle Asses
25(2):267–279. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11367-​019-​01696-6
Salvia, M., Reckien, D., Pietrapertosa, F., ..., Heidrich, O. (2021).
Will climate mitigation ambitions lead to carbon neutrality?
An analysis of the local-level plans of 327 cities in the EU.
Renew Sust Energ Rev, 135, 110253. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
rser.​2020.​110253
Shang T, Ye K, Wu L, Shang J (2022) Opportunism or symbiosis? A
case study on contractors’ unsustainable highway construction
in China. Resour Conserv Recycl Adv 14:200082. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​rcradv.​2022.​200082
Skaar C, Lausselet C, Bergsdal H, Brattebø H (2022) Towards a
LCA Database for the planning and design of zero-emissions
neighborhoods. Buildings 12(5):512. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
build​ings1​20505​12
Sohn J, Kalbar P, Goldstein B, Birkved M (2020) Defining tempo-
rally dynamic life cycle assessment: a review. Integr Environ
Assess Manag 16(3):314–323. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 002/​i eam.​
4235
Su S, Zhang H, Zuo J, Li X, Yuan J (2021) Assessment models and
dynamic variables for dynamic life cycle assessment of buildings:
a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(21):26199–26214. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​021-​13614-1
Sun Z, Ma Z, Ma M, Cai W, Xiang X, Zhang S, Chen M, Chen L
(2022) Carbon peak and carbon neutrality in the building sector: a
bibliometric review. Buildings 12(2):128. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.3​ 390/​
build​ings1​20201​28
Takano A, Winter S, Hughes M, Linkosalmi L (2014) Comparison of
life cycle assessment databases: a case study on building assess-
ment. Build Environ 79:20–30. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.b​ uilde​ nv.​
2014.​04.​025
Tam VWY, Liu L, Le KN (2022) Modelling and quantitation of embod-
ied, operational and mobile energies of buildings: a holistic review
13

from 2012 to 2021. Eng Constr Archit Manag. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1108/​ECAM-​01-​2022-​0050
UnitHelper. (2022). Unit Converter https://www.unithelper.com/
Wang H, Zhang H, Hou K, Yao G (2021) Carbon emissions factor
evaluation for assembled building during prefabricated compo-
nent transportation phase. Energy Explor Exploit 39(1):385–408.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01445​98720​973371
Wang J, Wang Z, Peng S, Li C, Wei L (2020) Tracing CO2 emissions
of China's construction sector. J Clean Prod 275:124165. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2020.​124165
Yang X, Hu M, Wu J, Zhao B (2018) Building-information-mod-
eling enabled life cycle assessment, a case study on carbon
footprint accounting for a residential building in China. J
Clean Prod 183:729–743. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 016/j.​j clep​r o.​
2018.​02.​070
Yu S, Wei YM, Guo H, Ding L (2014) Carbon emission coefficient
measurement of the coal-to-power energy chain in China. Appl
Energy 114:290–300. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apene​rgy.​2013.​
09.​062
Yue J, Li W, Cheng J, Xiong H, Xue Y, Deng X, Zheng T (2022) A
dynamic calculation model of the carbon footprint in the life cycle
of hospital building: a case study in China. Eng Constr Archit
Manag. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​ECAM-​05-​2022-​0395
Zhang J, Srinivasan RS, Peng C (2020) Ecological assessment of clay
brick manufacturing in china using emergy analysis. Buildings
10(11):1–17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​build​ings1​01101​90
13
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Zhang L, Dong L (2019) Application study on building information
model (BIM) standardization of Chinese engineering breakdown
structure (EBS) coding in life cycle management processes. Adv
Civil Eng:1581036. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2019/​15810​36
Zhang Y, Jiang X, Cui C, Skitmore M (2022) BIM-based approach for
the integrated assessment of life cycle carbon emission intensity
and life cycle costs. Build Environ 226:109691. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​build​env.​2022.​109691
Zhang Y, Sun M, Hong J, Han X, He J, Shi W, Li X (2016) Environ-
mental footprint of aluminum production in China. J Clean Prod
133:1242–1251. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2016.​04.​137
Zhao X, Cai Q, Zhang S, Luo K (2017) The substitution of wind power
for coal-fired power to realize China's CO2 emissions reduction
targets in 2020 and 2030. Energy 120:164–178. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​
1016/j.​energy.​2016.​12.​109
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.