Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Review

A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy Assessment

and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings
C.K. Chau ⇑, T.M. Leung, W.Y. Ng
Department of Building Services Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

h i g h l i g h t s

 Three streams of life cycle studies, namely LCA, LCEA and LCCO2A, were compared.
 Previous findings from the three streams were reviewed.
 Cases led to discrepancies of results arising from different types of life cycle studies were discussed.
 Limitations in using life cycle studies as decision tools for building design were identified.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper provides a review on three streams of life cycle studies that have been frequently applied to
Received 20 May 2014 evaluate the environmental impacts of building construction with a major focus on whether they can be
Received in revised form 17 November 2014 used for decision making. The three streams are Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Energy Assess-
Accepted 7 January 2015
ment (LCEA) and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment (LCCO2A). They were compared against their
evaluation objectives, methodologies, and findings. Although they share similar objectives in evaluating
the environmental impacts over the life cycle of building construction, they show some differences in the
Keywords:
major focuses of evaluation and methodologies employed. Generally, it has been revealed that quite con-
Life Cycle Assessment
Buildings
sistent results can be derived from the three streams with regard to the relative contribution of different
Decision making phases of life cycle. However, discrepancies occur among the findings obtained from the three streams
when different compositions of fuel mixes are used in power generation, or when the overall impacts
are not contributed mostly by greenhouse gases emissions. The use of different functional units in differ-
ent studies also makes it difficult to compare results with benchmarks or results from previous studies.
Besides, there are drawbacks in boundary scoping, methodology framework, data inventory and practices
which impair their usefulness as a decision making support tool for sustainable building designs.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
2. Scope of the review – Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy Assessment, Life Cycle Carbon Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
2.1. Life Cycle Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
2.2. Life Cycle Energy Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
2.2.1. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
2.3. Life Cycle Carbon Emission Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
2.3.1. Fossil carbon emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
2.3.2. Process carbon emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
2.3.3. Carbon emissions due to demolition/disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
3. Extended study boundaries to include land footprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
4. Functional units used for comparing the results from LCA, LCCO2, and LCEA studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
5. Summarized findings from previous studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 2766 7780; fax: +852 2765 7198.
E-mail address: chi-kwan.chau@polyu.edu.hk (C.K. Chau).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.023
0306-2619/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
396 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413

6. Other approaches for comparing life cycle study results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405

7. Discrepancies among different streams of studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
8. Limitations of LCA, LCEA and LCCO2A as decision making support tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
8.1. Boundary scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
8.2. Methodology framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
8.3. Data inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
8.4. Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
9. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409

1. Introduction house gas emissions by an average of 5%, back to 1990 levels

The growing environmental awareness has aroused great atten-
tion from many governments over the world. Inevitably buildings
become a major target for environmental improvement as building
sector accounted for nearly 40% of the world’s energy consump-
tion, 30% of raw material use, 25% of solid waste, 25% of water
use, 12% of land use, and 33% of the related global greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions [1,2].
Many attempts have been initiated to evaluate the environmen-
tal impacts of buildings, their constituent materials, components
and systems, and to explore any opportunities to reduce their envi-
ronmental impacts. Broadly speaking, three major streams of life
cycle studies can be classified according to the focus of evaluation
of the environmental impacts of buildings.
The first stream of studies can be grouped under Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) which focuses on evaluating the total environ-
mental impacts of buildings over their entire life cycles. To be more
specific, LCA is an objective process which aims to evaluate the
environmental burdens associated with a product, process or an
activity by identifying and quantifying the energy and material
uses and releases to the environment, and also aims to evaluate
and implement opportunities to affect environmental improve-
ments. The assessment includes the entire life cycle of the product,
process or activity, encompassing extracting and processing mate-
rials; manufacturing, transportation and distribution; use, reuse,
maintenance; recycling and final disposal. The International Orga-
nization for Standardization (ISO) produced a series of LCA Stan-
dards [3–6] focusing on the technical and organizational aspects
of an LCA project.
The major focus of the second stream of studies grouped under
the Life Cycle Energy Assessment (LCEA) is to evaluate the energy
use as a resources input to a building over its total life cycle. As
LCEA does not take quality of primary energy into account in the
assessment, it may not be able to convey a realistic picture on
the ultimate environmental impacts. Primary energy generated
from fossil fuels produces remarkably higher carbon emissions
than those generated from renewable energy like wind and solar.
In order to overcome this drawback, a method called Life Cycle
Exergy Assessment was developed by De Meester et al. [7] to take
into account the difference in quality of energy. Exergy is defined
as the amount of useful work extractable from a generic system
when it is brought to with its reference environment through a ser-
ies of reversible processes in which the system can only interact
with such environment [8,9]. However, this method has not been
frequently used due to its complexity.
The third stream of studies grouped under Life Cycle Carbon
Emissions Assessment (LCCO2A) focuses on evaluating the CO2
emissions as an output over the whole life cycle of a building. This
was possibly conducted in response to the imminently threatening
global warming problem caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The
Kyoto protocol agreement has set binding targets for 37 industrial-
ized countries and the European community to reduce the green-
within the years of 2008–2012. The launching of the Kyoto Proto-
col has led to many studies which aimed to evaluate the CO2 emis-
sions from buildings. Kyoto Protocol covers six different types of
greenhouse gases and provides CO2-equivalent emission values
for individual greenhouse gases. Life cycle carbon emissions con-
sider all the carbon-equivalent emission outputs from a building
over different phases of its life cycle.
Given a vast amount of studies have been conducted under
three different focuses, it is not clear whether their findings are
comparable with each other and are useful to inform decision mak-
ing during building design and assessment. Conceivably, the flexi-
bility of assessment framework, methodology differences,
discrepancies in boundary scope or boundary of assessment, data
uncertainties, differences in locality and ultimate objectives make
it extremely difficult to make a meaningful comparison of their
results and thus draw valuable conclusions to inform decision
making throughout the life cycle of buildings. Therefore, this
review has three major objectives, it attempts (i) to identify the
methodology details for estimating the environmental impacts
under the three different streams; (ii) to summarize the important
findings arising from three streams of studies which can be used to
assist decision making in achieving a sustainable or environmental
building design, operation and management; and also (iii) to iden-
tify the limitations and drawbacks associated with using LCA as a
decision-making tool.
2. Scope of the review – Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy
Assessment, Life Cycle Carbon Assessment
Fig. 1 shows the conceptual diagram of LCA. It can be seen that
the basic concept of LCA is to evaluate the environmental impacts
of a product over different life cycle stages, i.e. ‘‘from cradle to
grave’’. LCA evaluates all the resources inputs, including energy,
water and materials, and environmental loadings including CO2
emissions, solid wastes and liquid wastes of a product. However,
the focuses of the other two variants are different with Life Cycle
Energy Assessment (LCEA) being focused on resources input and
Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment (LCCO2A) being focused
on the CO2 equivalent emissions.
2.1. Life Cycle Assessment
Goal and scope definition, Inventory Analysis, Impact Assess-
ment and Interpretation are the four major phases within a LCA
(see Fig. 2). The first phase (Goal and Scope) define purpose, objec-
tives, functional and system boundaries. The second phase (Inven-
tory Analysis) consists of collecting all data relating to inputs,
processes, emissions, etc. of the whole life cycle. Within the third
phase (Impact Assessment), environmental impacts and input
resources are quantified based on the inventory analysis. The last
phase (Interpretation) is to interpret the results calculated from
 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413
Fig. 1. Basic concepts of LCA, LCEA and LCCO2A.
Fig. 2. Different phases for LCA [6].
Fig. 3. Mandatory and optional elements within the impact assessment phase.
the Impact Assessment phase and to recommend improvement
measures as appropriate.
As the major focus of this paper is to examine how the method-
ology details of computing the results, only the Impact Assessment
phase will be discussed in details. Fig. 3 shows the mandatory and
optional elements within the Impact Assessment phase. This
phase, which evaluates the potential environmental impacts and
estimates the resources used in the modeled system, consists of
three mandatory elements: selection of impact categories, assign-
ment of LCI (Life Cycle Inventory) results (classification), modeling
category indicators (characterization) [6,10]. Classification of the
LCI results involves assigning the emissions, wastes and resources
used to the chosen impact categories. However, it is worth noting
that different methods for LCI compilation methods can result in
different inventory value even for the same material [11]. The dif-
ferences or uncertainties in inventory value can lead to difference
in study results and conclusions [12,13]. The converted LCI
results are aggregated into an indicator result, which is the final
result of the mandatory part of an LCA. Broadly speaking, two char-
acterization approaches can be applied to quantify environmental
397
impacts – the problem-oriented (mid-point) and damage-oriented
(endpoints) approach [14]. Under the mid-point approach, use val-
ues at the beginning or middle of the environmental mechanism.
Impacts are classified on environmental themes such as global
warming potential, acidification potential, and ozone depletion
potential. This type of method generates a more complete picture
of ecological impacts, but requires good knowledge of LCA to inter-
pret the results. In contrast, under the end-point approach, impacts
are grouped into general issues of concern such as human health,
natural environment and resources, which eventually can be calcu-
lated into a single score – which is easier to understand but tend to
be less transparent [15,16]. On the contrary, fewer modeling
assumptions are needed for mid-point approach [17]. It can also
reflect a higher level of societal consensus, and provide more com-
prehensive results than model coverage for end-point approach
[18].
Normalization, grouping, weighting and additional data quality
analysis are optional steps [10]. Normalization is the calculation of
the magnitude of category indicator results relative to some refer-
ence information, for example the average environmental impact
of a European citizen in one year [19,20]. Although normalization
can help to understand the relative importance of different impact
categories in LCA studies, uncertainties in emission data and char-
acterization factors can lead to uncertainties in normalization
results [21,22]. Grouping is also a step of impact assessment in
which impact categories are aggregated into one or more sets.
Weighting is the process of converting indicator results of different
impact categories into more global issues of concern or as a single
score by using numerical factors based on value-choices, which
may be based on policy targets, monetization or panel weighting
[19,23,24]. The choice of weighting schemes will significantly
affect the conclusions. For example, the weighting schemes signif-
icantly affect the conclusions on which substances were most
damaging to human and ecosystem health in LCA studies [25].
Hitherto, there is no consensus on the approach or a satisfactory
method to guide assignment of weightings [26,27], or objective
approach to perform weighting of impact categories [28]. As a
result, it is not likely to yield a universal weighting set for the
world [29].
Broadly speaking, LCA intends to consider all the environmental
impacts, which include both resources input, emissions and wastes
output of a building during different phases of the life cycle. It can
be represented mathematically by:
I ¼ IExtraction þ IManufacture þ IOnsite þ IOperation þ IDemolition þ IRecycling
þ IDisposal ð1Þ
where I represents the life cycle environmental impact, and Ij repre-
sents the environmental impacts of jth building phase.
2.2. Life Cycle Energy Assessment
Life Cycle Energy Assessment (LCEA) is a simplified version of
LCA which focuses only on the evaluation of energy inputs for
398 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413

different phases of the life cycle. Mathematically, the terms ‘I’s in
Eq. (1) are replaced by ‘E’s to produce Eq. (2) as shown in the
following:
E ¼ EExtraction þ EManufacture þ EOnsite þ EOperation þ EDemolition
þ ERecycling þ EDisposal
where E represents the total energy consumed during the whole life
cycle of a building, and Ej represents the energy consumed during
jth building phase.
LCEA analysis can be performed using either primary or second-
ary energy (or delivered energy). So it is important to clearly spec-
ify the form of energy in focus [30] for facilitating later comparison.
Primary energy is the energy extracted from nature (e.g. coal)
is generally adequate when information on building quantities,
final drawings and environmental impact databases for construc-
tion product are available, bearing in mind the location of the
buildings in relation to building materials suppliers and waste
management operators.
ð2Þ In addition to the information on the quantity and type of build-
ing materials used, the values of embodied energy intensity factors
are also needed to compute the total embodied energy content of a
building design or a building. The model used for estimating the
initial embodied energy content of a building material is given as
follows:
Eemb;inital;i ¼ Eextraction;i þ Emanufacture;i ð3Þ
X
i

while secondary energy is the actual energy consumed (e.g.
electricity).
2.2.1. Methodologies
2.2.1.1. Embodied energy. Quite often, the first three energy compo-
nents shown in Eq. (2) are grouped together as embodied energy
during the evaluation of energy impacts. Embodied energy is the
energy utilized during manufacturing phase of a material. Embod-
ied energy of a building is the energy content of all the materials
used in the building and technical installations, and energy con-
sumed at the time of erection/construction and renovation of the
building. One of the major objectives of carrying out embodied
energy analysis for building construction is to compute the amount
of initial and/or recurring energy embodied within building mate-
rials and thus to compare the total embodied energy content for
different building materials, components, elements and designs.
Initial and recurring embodied energy are the two major com-
ponents of embodied energy. Initial embodied energy is the sum
of the energy required for extraction and manufacture of a material
together with the energy required for transportation of a material
used for the initial building construction. The recurring embodied
energy in buildings represents the sum total of the energy embod-
ied in the material use due to maintenance, repair, restoration,
refurbishment or replacement during the service life of the
building.
To estimate the embodied energy content for a building or
building design, a vast number of studies have adopted a ‘bot-
tom-up’ technique, sometimes called process-based approach
[31–34]. This bottom-up technique relies heavily on the embodied
energy databases for construction materials as well as drawings,
specifications and/or data from the actual buildings. This technique
Table 1
Embodied energy intensities for different types of building materials.
Type of building material Embodied energy intensitiesa (MJ/kg)
Aluminum 155.0–227.0
Bitumen and asphalt 2.6–44.1
Bricks and blocks 0.9–4.6
Concrete 0.50–1.6
Galvanized steel 35.8–39
Glass 15.0–18.0
Stone, gravel and aggregate 0.3–1.0
Purified fly ash (PFA) <0.1
Paint 20.0–81.5
Eemb;inital ¼ ai mi ð4Þ
1
where Eemb,initial,i is the initial embodied energy of the ith type of
building material (in MJ); Eemb,initial is the initial embodied energy
of the whole building (in MJ); ai is the embodied energy intensity
factor for the ith type of building material (in MJ/kg); and mi is
the mass of the ith type of building material (in kg); and mi should
include not only the quantities of building material in-place but also
the wastages incurred during construction. Table 1 shows the
embodied energy intensities of different building materials.
However, the quantification based upon the bottom-up tech-
nique truncates the system at a certain stage of supply chain and
hence does not account for inputs at higher stages or in related
supply chain. In view of this shortcoming, an economic input–
output analysis has also been used in the last few years for
estimating life cycle energy impacts, especially for assessing entire
industry sectors, and even for national economies. Input–output
analysis is a top-down statistical technique, based on financial
transactions, which is systematically complete. Its underlying
theory was originally published by Leontief [35], later enhanced
by Hendrickson et al. [36], and it is generally called economic
input–output Life Cycle Assessment. Relying on input–output
tables, it determined the energy intensity of economic sectors
and hence quantified the energy requirements of a product, based
on its price. While this technique considers the whole national
economy as a system, it suffers from a so-called ‘aggregation error’.
It may incur large uncertainties in data as a result of its reliance on
the assumption that all products within a sector share the same
energy intensity per monetary unit [37].
Alternatively, a hybrid technique analysis has been proposed by
combining the advantages of both process-LCA and input–output
LCA [42,43]. It consists of using process data wherever available
to fill the system gaps with input–output data in order to assess
the entirely of the supply chain of a product. To simplify the assess-
ment of embodied energy, factors known as hybrid energy coeffi-
cients have been developed by Treloar and Crawford [44], which
were formulated by combining the available process data for indi-
vidual materials with national average input–output data. The ini-
tial embodied energy of the building is obtained by multiplying the
relevant hybrid energy coefficients by the final quantities of the
respective materials contained within the building (including
wastage):
!
X
I X
I

Plaster, render and screed 1.4–1.8 Eemb;initial ¼ ðQ i  EC i Þ þ TERn  TERi  Pb ð5Þ

Plastic, rubber and polymer 67.5–116.0 i¼1 i¼1
Plywood 8.5–15.0
Precast concrete element 2.0 where Eemb,initial, initial embodied energy of the building in GJ; Qi,
Reinforcing bar and structural steel 9.9–35.0 quantity of material m in functional unit (e.g. ton, m3); ECi, hybrid
Stainless steel 51.5–56.7 energy coefficient of material m in GJ per functional unit; TERn, total
Thermal and acoustic insulation 3.0–45.0
energy requirements of the building construction related input–
Ceramic and tile 0.8–11.1
output sector n, in GJ/currency unit; TERi, total energy requirements
a
Embodied energy intensity values were extracted from [38–41]. of the input–output pathways representing the material production
 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413
processes for which process data is available, in GJ/currency unit;
and Pb, price of the building in currency units.
Besides initial embodied energy, recurring embodied energy
will also be consumed as a result of the needs to replace some
building materials, whose life spans are normally shorter than
the service life span of the building. The recurring embodied
energy is determined by summing up the embodied energy of
replaced materials across the life of the building. Quite often, the
replacement rate of building materials is based on an average use-
ful life. The recurring embodied energy of the building is computed
in a similar manner as its initial embodied energy by multiplying
the material quantities by their number of times of replacements
over the service life of the building and its respective hybrid energy
coefficient.
 
Lb
Eemb;recrruing;i ¼  1  mi  ai
Li
where Eemb;recurring;i is the recurring embodied energy of ith material,
Lb is the service life span of the building and Li is the life span of the
ith building material.
2.2.1.2. Operational energy. Operational energy is the energy
required for day-to-day operation processes of buildings such as
heating, cooling and ventilation systems, lighting as well as appli-
ances. Use phase accounts for the largest portion of energy con-
sumption of life cycle of conventional buildings [40,45], and the
operational energy use for heating and electricity accounted for
80–90% of climate change and acidification impacts from conven-
tional buildings [46,47].
Three major approaches have been used to estimate the opera-
tional energy use of buildings. The first approach relies on the
actual energy consumption records obtained from utility bills, or
energy audit exercises [48,49]. Its feasibility depends mainly upon
the availability of records in the format required [50–53].
The second approach estimates the operational energy use by
reference to some energy use databases. With aid of energy use
database, only an average energy consumption level can be esti-
mated for a particular type of building, e.g. offices or residential
building. For example, databases from Energy Information Admin-
istration (EIA) in the US was used to estimate the amount of elec-
tricity and natural gas consumption for typical office buildings in
the Midwest region [54].
The last approach estimates the operating energy use by energy
simulation methods. Quite a vast number of studies adopted the
technique of energy simulation to estimate the operational energy
use (e.g. [55–60]). They often require information including opera-
tional schedule, outdoor weather conditions, and occupants’
behavior, shape and orientation of building, types of construction
materials and building services systems. Energy simulation meth-
ods can be used to estimate energy consumption of the whole
building operation, which includes those associated with heating,
cooling and lighting. As the spacing heating and cooling processes
accounted for a significant proportion of the total energy consump-
tion in buildings [61–64], they always became the major focus of
many simulation studies [49,65,66]. Under the simulation
approaches, two main methods can be used for estimating the
operational energy use for space heating/cooling – i.e. steady-state
and dynamic methods. Steady-state method does not consider the
time variant of heating/cooling load being taken into account in the
dynamic method. Usually, steady-state approach is simpler and
more suitable for buildings with a fixed building operation sche-
dule [67]. On the contrary, dynamic approach is more complicated
but can be used to handle transient conditions. Software simula-
tion tools adopting the steady-state method include DOE-2, while
tools adopting the dynamic method include BLAST, EnergyPlus,
399
ESP-r and TRNSYS. Detailed comparisons of various energy simula-
tion tools have already been provided by a number of studies, e.g.
[68,69], and will not repeated here. Irrespective of the type of sim-
ulation methods are used, the simulation results are very sensitive
to the assumptions made for individual factors, which are some-
times difficult to predict accurately, e.g. occupants’ behavior and
weather conditions.
2.2.1.3. Demolition energy. The demolition/end-of-life energy is the
sum of energy consumed by the actual demolition process and
energy required for transportation of waste. Demolition energy
only accounts for a negligible share of total life cycle energy con-
sumption. The share of demolition energy was estimated to be
0.2% of total life cycle primary energy consumption of a university
building [70], office building [70], or single-family house [71]. The
ð6Þ share was only 0.3% even for energy efficient house [72].
2.3. Life Cycle Carbon Emission Assessment
Life Cycle Carbon Emission Assessment considers all the car-
bon-equivalent emission output from a building over different
phases of its life cycle. The amount of life cycle carbon emissions
can be computed by replacing the terms ‘I’s in Eq. (1) with ‘CO2’
and mathematically it can be determined from the following:
CO2 ¼ CO2Extraction þ CO2Manufacture þ CO2Onsite þ CO2Operation
þ CO2Demolition þ CO2Recycling þ CO2Disposal ð7Þ
where CO2 represents the CO2 emission of the whole life cycle of a
building, CO2j represents the CO2 emission during the jth building
phase.
Besides, the amounts of carbon emissions embedded in materi-
als, elements and buildings are also centers of focus. The embodied
carbon emissions are the sum of carbon emissions due to extrac-
tion and manufacturing, product assembly, transportation of raw
materials.
CO2;embodied;i ¼ CO2;Extraction;i þ CO2;Manufacture;i þ CO2;Transportation;i ð8Þ
X
i
CO2;embodied ¼ CO2;embodied;i ð9Þ
1
where CO2,embodied,i is the embodied carbon emission of the ith
material; CO2,embodied is the embodied carbon emission of the
building.
The embodied carbon emissions include not only the fossil car-
bon emissions from material production (Fossil carbon emissions),
but also the carbon emissions produced as a result of chemical
reactions occur inherent to industrial production process (Process
carbon emissions). Alternatively, embodied carbon emission of
building can be expressed as:
CO2;embodied ¼ CO2Fossil þ CO2Process ð10Þ
The methods used for estimating the amount of fossil carbon
emissions and process carbon emissions are discussed in the
followings:
2.3.1. Fossil carbon emissions
The amount of fossil carbon emissions is influenced not only by
the amount of primary energy required for manufacturing of a par-
ticular type of material, but also by the quality of primary energy
sources. The amount of fossil carbon emissions associated with a
particular type of materials can be estimated by either one of
two methods presented immediately following. Method I esti-
mates the fossil carbon emissions by summing up the carbon emis-
sions computed by multiplying the amount of energy used for
manufacturing materials with the appropriate fuel factor values.
400 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413

Table 2 building material (in MJ/kg); bi is the average CO2 emission factor
Ranges of fuel emission factor values for different primary energy sources. due to the manufacture of ith building material (in kgCO2-eq/MJ);
Types of primary energy Values of emission factor (kgCO2-eq/ and mi is the mass of the ith type of building material (in kg).
kW h) In Eqs. (11) and (12), bi is often termed as ‘emission factor’ or
Gasoline 0.249–0.252 ‘carbon intensity’. It is used to convert embodied energy to CO2
Kerosene 0.248–0.259 emissions. The CO2 emission factor gives the quantity of carbon
Gas/diesel oil 0.248–0.340 emitted to the atmosphere per unit of electricity delivered.
Residual oil 0.27–278
The emission factor values of CO2 emissions vary with type,
LPG 0.216–0.229
Naphta 0.264 quality and combusting conditions of energy. The values of fuel
Petroleum coke 0.335–0.351 emission factor for different primary energy sources are different,
Coal 0.341–0.486 and a big difference is found between non-renewable primary
Milled peat 0.420
energy (fossil and nuclear) and renewable primary energy (hydrau-
Sod peat 0.374
Peat briquettes 0.356
lic, biomass, wind, solar, and geothermal). Table 2 shows the
Natural gas 0.18–0.231 ranges of values of fuel emission factor for different types of pri-
Biomass 0 mary energy sources. Most of the times, an average emission factor
Low temperature thermal solar 0 value is used for a specific country, and its applicability to each
Peninsular conventional 0.649
country depends on the level to which its specific characteristics
electricity
Solar photovoltaic 0 (i.e. energy mix, manufacture technology, origin of the starting
b
materials, etc.) are adapted to the averages.
Values of emission factors are extracted from studies [73–76].

2.3.1.2. Method II: Directly computing from carbon emissions data-

base. More directly, carbon-equivalent emissions can be deter-
Table 3
mined by multiplying the quantity of a building material with its
CO2-equivalent emission values for different types of materials.
carbon-equivalent emission factor extracted from an appropriate
Type of building material CO2-eq emission value (in kgCO2-eq/kg) carbon emissions database, i.e.
Concrete 0.05–5.15
Steel bar 1.03–3.51 X
i

Stainless steel 3.38 Qi ¼ qi mi ð13Þ

Plywood mold 0.61 1
Cement 0.32
Copper 1.81–3.02 where qi is the carbon-equivalent emission value for the ith type of
Brass 2.34 building material (in kgCO2-eq/kg), which can be extracted from the
Cast iron 2.34 Table 3 below.
Limestone 0.019–0.37
Brick 1.13
Polyethylene 1.58 2.3.2. Process carbon emissions
Glass 1.06–1.50
Tile 0.74–6.78
Process carbon emissions are the carbon emissions generated
Aluminum 8.24–11.4 due to chemical reactions inherent to industrial production pro-
Bitumen and asphalt 0.045–0.48 cess. The amount of carbon emissions due to the manufacturing
Bricks and blocks 0.20–0.23 process of certain building materials, in particular concrete, con-
Galvanized steel 2.82
tributed to about 16% of embodied carbon emissions for concrete
Glass 0.85
Stone, gravel and aggregate 0.016–0.056 frame buildings [80]. The amount of carbon emissions arising from
Purified fly ash (PFA) 0.01 manufacturing process is small as compared with the amount of
Paint 2.95–3.56 carbon emissions arising from other part of the life cycle. However,
Plaster, render and screed 0.12–0.16 failure to include carbon emissions due to manufacturing process
Plastic, rubber and polymer 2.2–16.2
Precast concrete element 0.22
will still incur errors, e.g. 2–4% errors in the total life cycle carbon
Reinforcing bar and structural steel 1.72–2.82 emissions for a 50-year residential building in China [81]. Adjust-
Stainless steel 6.15 ments are needed to be made for process carbon emissions if a
Thermal and acoustic insulation 0.15–1.86 more accurate estimation is needed.
Ceramic and tile 0.43–0.65
The production of some materials may lead to emission or
Plywood 0.75–1.35
absorption of significant amounts of CO2. In a building life cycle,
c
Carbon emission values are extracted from studies [38,77–79]. industrial process emissions are mainly due to cement and steel
production. Cement production has been shown to be the largest
Method II estimates the fossil carbon emissions directly by multi- source of non-energy related industrial carbon emissions (83–
plying the quantities of materials used with the emission values of 85%) related to building construction because of the larger use
the materials. amount and a relatively high emission value [81]. During the
cement production process, CO2 is released due to calcination
2.3.1.1. Method I: Converting from energy consumption data. The reaction.
amount of CO2 emissions for the ith building material (Q i , in The impacts of calcination processes imposed on the life cycle
kgCO2) is estimated by evaluation of carbon emissions of concrete should not be over-
Q i ¼ ei bi mi ð11Þ looked. Calcination process emissions occur during concrete man-
ufacturing when limestone is decomposed to calcium oxide (CaO)
or and carbon dioxide at high temperatures. For the remainder of
their life cycles, concrete products absorb carbon dioxide from
qi ¼ ei bi ð12Þ
the atmosphere through carbonation, a chemical process in which
where qi is the CO2 emissions per kg of ith type building material (in the calcium oxide present in hardened cement products binds with
kgCO2-eq/kg); ei is the embodied energy intensity of the ith type of CO2 in the atmosphere to form carbonate [80].
 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413
2.3.2.1. Calcination. The CO2 emission arising from calcination pro-
cess is created through a chemical reaction that converts limestone
in cement to calcium oxide and CO2 at high temperature. The
amount of carbon emitted during the calcination of limestone in
the manufacture of cement can be calculated using the following
model developed by Pommer and Pade [82]:
CO2 calcination ðkgÞ ¼ b  W cement  pclinker
where b is the CO2 emitted per kg of clinker produced, which was
estimated to be 0.51 [82], Wcement is the amount of cement used
to construct the building (kg), Pclinker is the proportion of clinker
contained in the cement (%).
During the cement production process, it was estimated that on
average about half of the total CO2 emission came from the calcina-
tions of limestone (0.49 t CO2-eq/t cement) and the remainder
came from the manufacturing of cement by fossil fuels (0.41 t
CO2-eq/t cement) [83]. However, You [81] gave a lower estimate
of 0.396 tonne of CO2 emissions arising from the production of
1 tonne of cement.
Calcination also occurs during the production of steel reinforce-
ment bars in reinforced concrete. This is because limestone
(CaCO3) and dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) has often been used as flux
to remove impurities like sulfur and phosphorous during the pro-
duction of steel. Hong [84] estimated that each tonne of steel pro-
duction would discharge 0.426 tonne of CO2.
2.3.2.2. Carbonation. Over the life cycle of a cement product, some
of the CO2 are re-absorbed into the concrete matrix by a carbon-
ation reaction. The carbonation rate depends on the uncoated sur-
face area of concrete exposed to air, the composition of cement
used to make the concrete, the relative humidity and temperature
of the environment, and the exposure conditions [85]. The larger
the coating surface area, the lower carbonation rate as larger coat-
ing surface hinders atmospheric CO2 from diffusing into concrete.
The importance of the surface area of concrete is exemplified by
the substantial increase in CO2 absorption after a concrete struc-
ture is demolished and crushed. On the other hand, the cement
composition, e.g. the amount of pure clinker in concrete, also
affects the carbonation uptake rate. Higher recycled aggregate con-
tent in concrete gives higher porosity which increases water
absorption and carbonation. Besides, the exposure conditions also
influences the carbonation rate. Carbonation is slower in case of
extremes of humidity, and the ideal humidity for maximizing car-
bonation was determined to be between 60% and 80% [86]. High
temperatures speed up the rate of carbonation. Concrete exposed
to indoor conditions carbonates faster than that exposed to out-
door conditions. Crushed concrete aggregate used below ground,
as in roadbeds, will have lower carbonation rate compared to when
used above ground. The carbonation rate is lower during the ser-
vice life of concrete and higher when the concrete is demolished
and crushed at the end of its service life [87].
The net life cycle carbon emissions due to process carbon emis-
sions can be estimated as follows:
CO2;process ¼ mcement  ccement  mcement  lcement
where CO2,process is the net CO2 emission from industrial process
reactions (kgCO2); mcement is the mass of cement used to construct
the building (kg); ccement is the CO2 emission per kg of cement due
to calcination reaction during manufacture of cement (kgCO2/kg
cement); lcement is the CO2 absorption per kg of cement due to car-
bonation reaction over the building life cycle.
Despite so, the carbon uptake by post-use concrete is still small
when compared with the total carbon flows over a building life-
cycle, even after being crushed and exposed for a long period
[80]. The CO2 emission from fossil fuel used to crush the post-
use concrete is roughly equivalent to the increased CO2 uptake
401
from carbonation of the crushed concrete. The net CO2 emission
of concrete production after taking into account of both calcination
and carbonation was estimated to be 0.033 kgCO2/kg concrete [88].
2.3.3. Carbon emissions due to demolition/disposal
Apart from fossil fuel emissions and industrial process emis-
sions, sometimes the carbon emissions due to disposal of materials
ð14Þ
have also been included in the life cycle carbon analysis. Carbon
dioxide is emitted during transportation of demolition wastes to
disposal sites and also during the disposal process.
The carbon emissions due to transport of demolition wastes to
disposal sites can be determined by
moutgoing
CO2;waste disposal ¼ dx ð16Þ
u
where CO2;waste disposal is the amount of CO2 emissions due to wastes
disposal (kgCO2/(t)), moutgoing is weight of outgoing materials (t)
and u is the loading rate of trucks, d is the distance of transport,
and x is the unit CO2 emission rate for road freight transport
(kgCO2/t km).
After solid wastes have been disposed in wastes dumps or
landfills over a certain period of time, most of the organic materials
will start to degrade. The majority of this process will be bio-
degradation, which may either be aerobic or anaerobic. The
main degradation products are carbon dioxide (CO2), water and
heat for the aerobic process and methane (CH4) and CO2 for the
anaerobic process.
In estimating the CO2 emissions due to bio-degradation, two
major methods have been proposed within the IPCC Guidelines
[89]:
(i) The default IPCC methodology which is based on the theo-
retical gas yield (a mass balance equation).
(ii) Theoretical first order kinetic methodologies, through which
the IPCC Guidelines introduces the ‘‘First order decay model’’
(FOD).
The major difference between the two methods is that the
default method does not reflect the time variation in solid waste
disposal and the degradation process as it assumes that all poten-
tial methane is released the year the solid waste is disposed. The
timing of the actual emissions is reflected in the FOD method. Only
if the yearly amounts and composition of wastes disposal as well as
disposal practices can be maintained nearly constant for long peri-
ods, the default method will produce fairly good estimates of the
yearly emissions. In case an increased amount of carbon deposited
at solid waste disposal sites will lead to an overestimation, while a
reduced amount will lead to underestimation of yearly emissions.
The FOD Method gives a more accurate estimate of the yearly
emissions. Many countries may, however, have problems in getting
the necessary data and information (historical data on solid waste
disposal, rate constant for the decay) to establish the default
method is based on the following model:
ð15Þ Methane emissions ðGg=yrÞ ¼ ðMSWT  MSWF  MCF
 DOC  DOCF  F
 16=12-RÞ  ð1  OXÞ ð17Þ
where MSWT: total municipal solid waste (MSW) generated (Gg/
yr); MSWF: fraction of MSW disposed to solid waste disposal sites;
MCF: methane correction factor (fraction); DOC: degradable organic
carbon (fraction) (kg C/kg SW); DOCF: fraction DOC dissimilated; F:
fraction of CH4 in landfill gas (IPCC default is 0.5); 16/12: conversion
of C to CH4; R: recovered CH4 (Gg/yr); OX: oxidation factor (fraction –
IPCC default is 0), a proper basis for emission inventories with a rea-
sonable accuracy.
402 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413
The FOD model is presented through three equations. The first
equation is applicable for one or a selection of specific landfills:
Q ¼ Lo  R  ðekc  ekt Þ ð18Þ
3
where Q: methane generated in current year (m /yr); Lo: methane
generation potential (m3/Mg of refuse); R: average annual waste
acceptance rate during active life (Mg/yr); K: methane generation
rate constant (l/yr); C: time since SWDS closure (yr); t: time since
SWDS opened (yr).
When estimating the regional or national figures, the following
equation can be used for estimating the CH4 generation in year T
from all solid waste landfilled in one specific year x (Rx):
Q T;x ¼ k  Rx  Lo  ekðTxÞ ð19Þ
where QT,x: the amount of methane generated in year T by the waste
Rx (Mg); x: the year of waste input; Rx: the amount of waste dis-
posed in year x (Mg); T: current year.
In order to estimate all emissions in the year T arising from the
wastes disposal in previous years, Eq. (17) can be solved for all val-
ues of Rx and the results are summed using the following equation:
Q T ¼ RQ T;x ð20Þ
for x = initial year to T, where QT: total emissions in year T from
wastes disposed of in previous years (including year T).
No specific recommendations of default values are given for
variables like Lo and k, and instead only very wide ranges of values
have been specified: Lo <100 to >200 N m3/Mg; k = 0.005–0.4.
The amounts of CH4 generated from different types of landfill
wastes were often determined by experiments. USEPA gave the
CH4 emission factors for 46 types of materials. For example, USEPA
estimated that over a time period of 100 years, 0.24 tonne CO2-eq
would be emitted per tonne of drywall, and 1.60 tonne CO2-eq
per tonne of wood flooring [90]. The model estimations are based
on a number of factors like amount of wastes disposal, wastes com-
position, and landfill cover material. Large uncertainties in model
results may occur as these factors are usually poorly defined
[89,91].
Alternatively, emissions from landfill can be estimated using
transfer coefficients (TK) [92], e.g. Zhao et al. [93] used the transfer
coefficients from Swiss inventories to estimate the landfill gas
emissions in Tianjin, China for 100 years. Transfer coefficients are
the percentages of total amount of pollutants emitted through a
specific pathway (e.g. air or water) [94]. For landfill gas emissions,
transfer coefficient to air should be considered. The amount of
emissions of a given pollutant x to air can be estimated by:
Emissionx ¼ Compositionx  TK x ð21Þ
where Emissionx is the amount of pollutant x emitted, Compositionx
is the amount of pollutant x contained in the disposed material and
TKx is the transfer coefficient of pollutant x to air.
The transfer coefficients of different types of materials can be
extracted from the Life Cycle Inventories of waste disposal pro-
cesses. But the data in the inventories should be used with due care
as it was developed based on Swiss conditions, and needs adjust-
ment to make it applicable to other regions with different climatic
conditions [94].
3. Extended study boundaries to include land footprint
Although LCA in principle includes all types of environmental
impacts, in practice the focus has often been confined to impacts
that are related to extractions and emissions, that is, the material
inputs to and outputs from the product system [95]. However, land
use is a type of impact outside the extraction/emission scheme.
Due to its overriding importance, there are many earlier attempts
to incorporate land use and connected biodiversity into LCA [95].
Broadly speaking, there are two main types of impacts caused by
land.
The first type is attributed to land conversion. Change of land
use is one of important issues to be considered for sustainable
building construction. Transforming from fertile land to urban land
in the U.S. reduced the amount of carbon fixed through photosyn-
thesis by 1.6% [96]. Conversely, transforming from agricultural
land to low density exurban development (0.025–0.1 housing units
per acre) with a large proportion of vegetation, could lead to a
higher CO2 uptake [97]. Land occupation especially in combination
with biodiversity, which is typically linked with the different types
of land use, is being brought into the framework satisfactorily [28].
Real problems are encountered with transitions in land use and
their concomitant changes in biodiversity. The second type is
related to the environmental impacts attributed by the land foot-
print occupied by buildings, infrastructures and their wastes. The
land footprint is the summed area of the areas occupied by build-
ings, infrastructures and the area required by wastes treatment.
The land footprint attributed by a building and infrastructure are
the land areas occupied by the buildings and relevant infrastruc-
tures (e.g. roads, power lines, water and gas distribution, and sew-
age) respectively. The land footprint attributed by wastes
treatment is determined by the total amount of wastes and the
required land area for treating a unit of wastes. Alternatively, in
a recent study conducted by Zhang et al. [98], the impacts of land
footprint were estimated by computing the net effects of carbon
sources and sinks within a city. The carbon sinks include livestock
while carbon sources include forests and transportation. Hitherto,
there is a lack of consensus on what to be included and on how
these impacts should be included in an LCA [28].
Most of the studies attempted to express the life cycle environ-
mental, carbon or energy impacts of land, relevant infrastructure
and wastes in terms of a functional unit. For example, the embod-
ied energy, carbon or environmental impacts of each infrastructure
have been calculated based on the infrastructure density in m/km2
and attributed to the building based on the population density and
the number of users. The land footprint emissions per square meter
of building area decreased in an exponential manner with the
increasing total number of building stories [81]. For typical brown-
field and greenfield residential developments, the average green-
house gas emissions were estimated to be 10,229 kgCO2-eq/
person/year and 9262 kgCO2-eq/person/year respectively [99].
4. Functional units used for comparing the results from LCA,
LCCO2, and LCEA studies
Different streams of methods and even different studies using
the same stream of method may present their results in many dif-
ferent units. For LCCO2 studies, it is quite straightforward as almost
all studies reported their results in terms of carbon-equivalent
emissions. For LCEA studies, the results have always been
expressed in terms of energy consumption. However, complica-
tions may arise as some studies reported using primary energy
while the others reported using secondary energy. For LCA studies,
they are even more complicated as their results can either be
expressed in terms of individual units for different environmental
impacts, composite scores or index values formulated by using a
set of important weighting factor.
Most of the times, the computed results are normalized against
a particular functional unit, which is defined as a reference unit
that quantifies the performance of a product system in a life cycle
study [6]. The functional unit is used for facilitating comparison
among different design alternatives or different studies. The ease
of comparing the results with other studies is a very important
 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413 403

Table 4
Types of functional units employed in various LCA studies.

Target Functional unit System/material in focus Unit description

2
Whole building m – Net floor area [104–106]; heated area [106]; usable floor area [107]; GFA [108]; living area [60];
floor area without detailed specifications [109,110]
3
m – Gross volume/heated volume [104]
Total – [58,111]
environmental
impact
– – [112–118]
Building m2 Façade system Net floor area [119]
system/ Insulation Surface area of external wall [120]
material Windows Glazed area [121]
Drainage layer in Area of roofing system [122]
extensive green roofs
Plaster Surface area to be plastered [123]
Green wall Area of green wall [124]
m3 Concrete Volume of concrete [125]
cm Hemp concrete wall Thickness of hemp concrete wall for 1 m2 of wall with a thermal resistance R of 2.78 m2 K/W [126]
kW h PV system Electricity produced [127,128]
MJ Solar thermal system Energy output of system [129]
kg Insulation Mass of insulation board with a thermal resistance R of 1 m2 K/W [130,131]
External wall Mass of materials for 1 m2 of building wall [132]
Bricks Mass of bricks [133]
Tonne Recycled PVC Mass of PVC recycled from waste window frames [134]
Total Insulation [135]
environmental
impact
Solar heating and cooling [136]
system
– PCM [137–140]
Steel structure [141,142]
Façade system [101,143–147]
PV system [148]
Partition walls [149]
Window [150]

Table 5
Types of functional units employed in various LCEA studies.

Target Type of Functional System/material Unit description

energy unit in focus
Whole Primary m2 – Net area [104]; usable area [151–154]; heated area [155,156]; floor area without detailed
building specifications [157–160]
m2 year – Livable area [105,161]; usable area [162]; gross area [107,156]; gross area plus the external
services (covered garage) [156]; floor area without detailed specifications [163]
3
m – Gross volume/heated volume [104]
m3 year – Heated building volume [164]
Capita – [154]
Person year – [107,161]
Total energy – [37]
consumption
– – [63,102,165]
Secondary Year – [59]
Guest night – [53]
Total energy – [58]
consumption
Building Primary m2 Timber building Livable area [166]
system/ systems
material Structure Floor area without detailed specifications [167]
Partition walls Area of partition walls [168]
kg Insulation Mass of insulation material [169]
kW Solar heating and Power of the main component of the plant that is the absorption chiller [170]
cooling system
kW h Solar heating and Cooling and heating energy produced by plant during the lifespan [170]
cooling system
Total energy PV system [148]
consumption
Secondary m2 Structure Gross internal area [171]; floor area without detailed specifications [172]
kg Insulation Mass of insulation board with a thermal resistance R of 1 m2 K/W [144]
404 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413

Table 6
Types of functional units employed in various LCCO2 studies.

Target Functional System/material in Unit description

unit focus
Whole building m2 – Net area [104]; interior floor-area [173]; exclusive use area [174]; living area [58]; construction area [175];
usable area [176]; gross internal area [171]; floor area without detailed specifications [81,159,177,178]
2
m year – Gross area [107]; livable area [161]; floor area without detailed specifications [179]
m3 – Gross volume/heated volume [104]
Year – [59]
Guest night – [53]
Person year – [107,161]
Room – [175]
Total GHG – [58]
emission
– – [63,102,103]
Building m2 Structure Floor area without detailed specifications [167,172]
system/ Façade system Facade area [180,181]
material Windows Glazing area [182,183]
Roofs Roofing area [184]
Partition walls Area of partition walls [168]
m3 Concrete Volume of concrete [185–187]
kg Insulation Mass of insulating panel that involves a thermal resistance R equal to 1 m2 K/W [144]
Insulation Mass of insulation material [169]
Cement Mass of cement [188]
kW Solar heating and Power of the main component of the plant that is the absorption chiller [170]
cooling system
kW h Solar heating and Cooling and heating energy produced by plant during the lifespan [170]
cooling system
PV system Electricity produced [189]
Total GHG Façade system [181]
emission
– External wall [190]
materials
Building envelope [191]
HVAC system [49]

factor in determining which functional unit should be used [100].
Tables 4–6 show different types of functional units that were used
for comparing the results derived from different studies or stan-
dards from the year 2010 onward.
Many different types of functional unit (e.g. m2 of construction
floor area, m2 of usable area, m3 of air-conditioned volume, num-
ber of occupants) have been used for comparing the life cycle envi-
ronmental impacts of whole buildings. Meanwhile, functional units
like m3 and kg have been used for comparing the environmental
impacts of different types of building materials. Alternatively,
some studies reported their results in terms of the total life cycle
impact, e.g. operational phase was shown to contribute to about
90% of total acidification impact category of dwellings in Columbia
[58]. On the contrary, some studies did not express their final
results in terms of any specific functional unit during comparison,
e.g. no specific functional unit was used for comparing the life
cycle environmental impacts incurred by different window–wall
ratios of office buildings in China [101], for comparing the life cycle
energy use of different design variations for a single-story retail
building in Canada [102], or for comparing the life cycle carbon
emissions arising from two residential buildings with similar
architectural configurations [103].
5. Summarized findings from previous studies
Generally, a majority of the findings were derived from case
studies whose results are difficult to compare since each studied
project has its own specific properties e.g. building type, climate,
comfort requirements, and local regulations, and different studies
may apply different forms of analysis, e.g. different boundary
settings.
Despite so, there are some commonalities observed in findings
arising from the three streams that can help identify the areas
which are not required to perform further life cycle analysis. Given
the complexities of case studies, only those results relating to abso-
lute or relative contributions of individual life cycle phases can be
compared among three streams of studies.
Use phase dominates the life cycle energy use, life cycle CO2
emissions as well as the life cycle environmental impacts of a con-
ventional building irrespective of the type of construction. For the
semi-detached and terraced houses in the UK, the use phase con-
tributed a large majority of the impact on global warming potential
(90%) [107]. The energy consumption during the use phase also
accounted for 80–90% of total life cycle energy consumption of
conventional high-rise office buildings with 50 year lifespans
[192,193]. The share of the use phase of standard houses was in
the range of 60–90% of the total environmental burdens, which
was mainly related to contribution to global warming potential
[40,194]. Use phase accounted for 93.4% of global warming,
89.5% of nitrification potential, 89.5% of acidification, 82.9% of
ozone depletion potentials and 61.9% of solid waste generation of
a residential dwelling [70]. However, these percentage figures
would be changed for low energy buildings whose embodied phase
could make up to as much as 50% of the total life cycle impact
[155,164].
The energy shares of different phases in the life cycle energy of
buildings have been shown to be similar to the environmental
impacts of different phases of a building on environment [60].
Use phase accounted for 85% of the primary energy use of a 6-story
university building [70]. Similarly, use phase also accounted for
80–90% of the total life cycle CO2 emissions of a conventional res-
idential building [180]. The amount of CO2 emissions during use
phase was 2.38 t/m2 (90% of the total amount), and almost 60%
of those were used for heating in residential buildings in Northern
China [81]. Similar observations are found for buildings located in
different climatic zones despite the types of primary energy use for
 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413
operating buildings being different. In case of cold countries, the
share of use phase is comparatively small as most of the heating
energy consumed are consumed in form of natural gas of relatively
low-CO2 emission impacts, while in the warm countries, space
cooling energy is often consumed in form of electricity produced
from high-CO2 impact fossil fuels.
The second important life cycle phase is the embodied phase.
The percentage of contribution of embodied phase to the whole life
cycle depends on the length of lifespan studied, the type of build-
ings and the type of energy or emission related technology
employed within a building [70,195,196]. The embodied phase
accounted for 10–27% of the total energy use and carbon emissions
of a conventional commercial building [50,197], 15–40% of a resi-
dential building [50,198,199] with a studied lifespan of 50–
60 years. The percentage of contribution of embodied phase
becomes higher with a shorter studied lifespan. Also, the embodied
phase has been shown to have a more profound impact on zero-
energy or zero-emission buildings since low energy buildings con-
sume less operating energy in the use phase and is resulted in the
increase in the contribution of embodied energy. In terms of pri-
mary energy, initial embodied energy of a net zero energy building
was found to be about 78% more than operation energy [156]. A
study revealed that embodied energy of a passive house with PV
installation was 44% more than its operation energy, when the
studied lifespan was 60 years [200]. Over a 100 year lifespan, the
embodied energy of a passive house accounted for 56% of the total
life cycle primary energy demand [154].
Within the embodied phase, the type of materials used in the
structure of a building has a profound impact on its total embodied
energy content, total carbon emissions and total life cycle impacts
due to large quantities of materials used. A wood-frame building
has a lower environmental impact than concrete-frame building
[173]. Constructing a steel-framed building with concrete slabs
incurred more energy and CO2 emission than constructing a con-
crete-framed office building over a 50-year lifespan [201]. The
materials used for the structure of buildings represented more
than 50% of the embodied energy content of a building [202,203].
For a concrete frame building, concrete accounted for 61% of
embodied energy contributed by all the materials used in a dwell-
ing in Scotland [202]. Concrete and steel reinforcement bars
accounted for 20–35% and 15–22% respectively of life cycle envi-
ronmental impacts of commercial buildings with a 50-year lifespan
[192]. Steel reinforcement bars and concrete were the most signif-
icant materials in terms of their associated environmental impacts
for a 38-storey office building in Thailand as they accounted for
about 17% and 64%, respectively, of the global warming potential
originating from the production of materials utilized for the build-
ing. They also accounted for 42% and 30% of the total photo-
oxidant formation potential respectively, and 38% and 42% of the
total acidification potential [40]. 28% of the production energy of
a dwelling was required to produce concrete for the whole dwell-
ing [194]. Although the materials used for building envelope only
represented a smaller proportion, i.e. about one-fourth of the total
CO2 equivalent emissions from a contemporary office building
[203], they contributed approximately 50–60% of the total heat
gain in buildings [204]. Indeed, the cladding material and its thick-
ness choices are consistently the most significant considerations
regardless of building design configuration [77].
In UK, end-of-life phase of semi-detached and terraced houses
contributed to 1% of impact of global warming potential [107].
The demolition phase of a new low-rise university building with
75 years of lifespan only accounted for 0.2% of life cycle energy
consumption [70]. Within the demolition phase, environmental
consequences only accounted for 7% of total demolition/end-of-life
stage activities with the remaining being arisen from transporta-
tion [205].
405
Besides all the above life cycle phases, there were also studies
which revealed the life cycle environmental impact of transporta-
tion. Many studies showed that transportation accounted for 1–8%
of the total life cycle energy use, CO2 emissions or total environ-
mental impacts of the embodied and construction phase
[192,206,207]. Highest bound will be approached if all the materi-
als used for building construction are imported from overseas
countries, while the lowest bound will be approached if all the
materials used are locally made [194,208,209]. Transportation
deserves more attention when a majority of materials are imported
and transported over a long distance. For instance, transportation
becomes an issue of concern in Hong Kong since a majority of
the building materials are imported. The contribution of transpor-
tation was up to 7% of the total life cycle environmental burdens of
25 high-rise commercial buildings [192], 6–7% of life cycle energy
consumed for two high-rise public housing blocks [206], and 6–8%
of total carbon emissions from a high-rise office building [207].
Conversely, the transportation of materials during construction
only contributes a minor proportion of the total energy consump-
tion if most of the building materials are locally produced [19].
Only 1–4% was consumed in form of transportation energy as the
travel distances and associated impacts were limited for local
materials [208,209].
In contrast, less attention can be placed on the demolition phase
as it only accounts for a small percentage of the total life cycle
energy consumption. The above results have identified the major
life cycle phases and the materials, components, or elements that
should be received greater attention when designing and evaluat-
ing low environmental impact buildings. Use phase should be
received a greater attention in a conventional building design irre-
spective of the type of building, while embodied phase should
become an important focus for a low-emission building design. If
embodied phase is one of the major focuses, the materials used
for the structure should receive greater attention together with
the building envelope design. The structural materials, which can-
not be easily replaced, contribute considerably to the total embod-
ied energy. For example, on average, 35–57% of total LCI point
values of 25 office buildings in Hong Kong were contributed by
structural materials over a lifespan of 50 years [192]. Meanwhile,
the materials used in building envelopes should also be centers
of focuses as they not only account for a significant amount of
the embodied energy and carbon emission contents [203], but also
exert considerable impacts on the amount of operating energy use
in the use phase.
6. Other approaches for comparing life cycle study results
Besides the types of functional units shown in Tables 4–6, other
types of representations have been developed for comparing
results from life cycle studies. For instance, life cycle carbon effi-
ciency, which is determined by dividing the product of life span
and building area or volume by life cycle carbon emission of build-
ing, was proposed by Li et al. [210] to evaluate the environmental
impacts of buildings. The idea of per capita annual efficiency of life
cycle eco-footprint and space efficiency of life cycle eco-footprint
was introduced by Teng and Wu [211] to evaluate the eco-effi-
ciency of building projects. Energy Payback Time (i.e. the ratio of
change in total embodied energy due to specific measures and
the associated annual change in operational energy) and Net
Energy Ratio (the ratio of change in annual operational energy
due to specific measures and the associated annual change in
embodied energy) were also used to evaluate the life cycle effi-
ciency of buildings [212].
In addition to environmental consideration, economic consider-
ations have also been incorporated into life cycle studies. Some
406 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413

recent studies incorporated the economic consideration by
expressing their results in terms of some economic values, e.g. car-
bon price or value [190,213,214], or by also including Life Cycle
Cost [105,215,216]. The Building for Environmental and Economic
Sustainability (BEES) tools developed by National Institute of Stan-
dards and Technology in the US allows users to incorporate life
cycle costing into their material selection process by applying a
weighting factor between environmental and economic consider-
ations [217]. Cost-efficiency, which was defined as the ratio of
the differences in costs between two material options to their dif-
ferences in GHG emissions, was introduced to compare environ-
mental impact of wooden and steel beams in building
construction [218]. Economic payback period was adopted to
reveal the efficiency of using different options of thermal insula-
tions [120]. One LCA study evaluated the life cycle environmental
impacts of internal partition walls by employing a simple eco-
nomic parameter €/m2 for facilitating comparison [149].
Even though there were recent efforts to bridge the gap for easy
comparison of study results, there is still no solid guideline or sug-
gestion on how to choose a more universal functional unit or tool
for result comparison. Even with the additional economic consider-
ations being incorporated into the studies, truly sustainable deci-
sions still cannot be fully sought due to the lack of inclusion of
social considerations, i.e. the third pillar of sustainability.
7. Discrepancies among different streams of studies
Hitherto, there is not any solid guideline on which stream of
methods should be applied for Life Cycle Assessment studies if
the objective is to compare the environmental impacts of different
building designs. Theoretically speaking, the more details the
stream of methods provides, the better the method is. However,
the level of details required should be traded off against the level
of resources commitment. In reality, the required output data for-
mat sometimes will dictate the stream of methods applied. For
example, LCCO2A method or LCA method with individual impact
results can be applied in case the objective is to determine how
much CO2 emissions will be produced by a building in response
to the Kyoto Protocol requirements.
However, questions arise on which stream of methods should
be applied if the objective is to compare different scenarios, and
whether discrepancies will occur and lead to different decision
outcomes if different streams of methods are applied for evaluating
the same scenario. Table 7 summarizes the factors contributing to
discrepancies arising from using different types of life cycle
studies.
Discrepancies may arise when applying LCA and LCEA or apply-
ing LCA and LCCO2A in the evaluation of the same scenario. This is
mainly due to differences in the types of resources input and envi-
ronmental loadings considered by different streams of life cycle
studies. As seen in Fig. 1, LCA considers all the resources input
and environmental loading, LCEA only considers the energy input,
and LCCO2A only considers carbon emission.
It is also anticipated that application of LCEA and LCCO2A
method will lead to significant differences in results when the
evaluation scenarios involve a change in the level of usage of
renewable energies. Generation of electricity from hydroelectric
power or other renewable sources have significantly different
impacts than conventional, hydrocarbon-based fossil fuel
resources [219,220]. The amount of CO2 equivalent emissions can
be quite different as a result of different usage of renewable ener-
gies even for the same level of energy consumption. Energy derived
from fossil fuel will produce high carbon emissions whereas onsite
renewable energy may provide low carbon emissions. Similarly,
application of LCEA and LCCO2A may lead to different decision out-
comes when the evaluation scenarios involve the use of building
materials produced using different fuel mixes in different coun-
tries. Manufacture of PV modules would emit 72.4 g CO2-eq/kW
if US fuel mix was employed for electricity production and 54.6 g
CO2-eq/kW if European UCPTE fuel mix was employed despite
the electricity requirement for manufacturing processes being
the same [221]. Besides, discrepancies in decision outcomes may
also occur if both embodied energy analysis and embodied carbon
analysis are applied for evaluating the same scenario. As material
processes can both emit and sequester carbon, embodied energy
does not have a direct relationship with embodied carbon. For
example, calcination and carbonation processes occur for cement
and sequestering of timber during its growth alter the amount of
carbon sequestration and emissions [222].
Discrepancies in results derived from LCA method may lead to
different decision outcomes if the types of impact categories con-
sidered are different. By comparing different fuel mix scenarios, a
scenario which reduced GHG emissions could increase the deple-
tion of abiotic resources [223]. The conclusion about a fuel mix sce-
nario will be substantially different if only the impact category of
GHG emission is considered, e.g. nuclear fuel would be preferred
in case only GHG emission was considered [224]. During the eval-
uation of Life Cycle impacts of use of renewable energy system in a
residential building, it was determined that the use of renewable
energy system in building could reduce the amount of CO2 emis-
sion during the use phase, but the impact points related to Human
Toxicity Potentials and Freshwater Ecosystem Impact of such a

Table 7
Summary of factors which contribute to discrepancies in results between different types of life cycle studies.

Streams of life cycle studies in focus
Between LCA and LCCO2A studies
Between LCA and LCEA studies
Between LCEA and LCCO2A studies
Within LCA studies
Within LCEA studies
Within LCCO2A studies
Contributing factors to discrepancies in their results
 Types of resources input and environmental loadings considered
 Types of resources input and environmental loadings considered
 Level of usage of renewable energy
 Types of fuel mixes
 Types of material processes which involve emitting and/or sequestering carbon
 Types of impact categories included in the assessment
 Set of weightings used for aggregating different types of impact categories
 Inventory included in different tools
 Types of LCA tools employed
 Types of functional units
 Types of energy in focus (primary vs secondary)
 Primary energy factor value
 Type of functional units
 Types of functional units
 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413 407

system were increased by about 25% and 100% respectively [225].
In a study on the environmental impact of an office building in Fin-
land with a life span of 50 years, electrical services contributed the
most to climate change impact category while building materials
contributed the most to summer smog impact category [226]. A
study on commercial building also showed that concrete contrib-
uted the most to global warming potential in manufacturing phase
while steel contributed the most to Photochemical Ozone Creation
Potential [227]. An increase in insulation thickness of a family
house in Switzerland reduced Global Warming Potential (GWP)
significantly irrespective of whether the Swiss or UCTE (Union for
the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity) mix electricity
production was employed. However, this led to a decrease in Acid-
ification Potential (AP) of the house by 10% with Swiss mix electric-
ity production (mainly hydro and nuclear power), while an
increase in AP by about 3% if the UCTE mix electricity production
was used [228].
Choosing different LCA tools may also lead to different conclu-
sions. When comparing constructions of four-story low-energy
dwellings, masonry was determined to be the most undesirable
option if Eco-indicator 99 was used. On the contrary, wood–
cement was determined to be the most undesirable option when
applying EPS 2000 and GWP methods. The discrepancies were
mainly due to different types of grouping and weighting assigned
to different impact categories [115]. In a study comparing results
from SimaPro and Gabi of 100 unit processes, significant differ-
ences in results were obtained for the impact categories Photo-
chemical Ozone Formation (Human) and Land Use. This was due
to the difference in life cycle inventories included in the software
[12]. Designers and assessors are therefore required to perform
tradeoffs themselves in case discrepancies arise in results for indi-
vidual impact categories.
When it comes to LCEA, the types of energy in focus (primary
energy vs secondary energy) will also give rise to large discrepan-
cies in results, which may eventually influence the final decision
outcomes. Obviously, results derived from delivered energy cannot
be used to compare with results from primary energy. Even if pri-
mary energy is concerned, comparison against past published data
in different countries can lead to misleading conclusion because
the primary energy factors in countries with different electricity
mix will be different. For example, the primary energy factor for
European (UCTE) electricity mix was estimated to be 3.541 while
2.294 was the primary energy factor estimated for combined cycle
power plant (CCPP) [229].
Even with the application of the same stream of method for
comparing against benchmarks or past published data, discrepan-
cies may also occur in case different types of functional units are
used. As seen from Tables 4–6, it can either be expressed in terms
of gross floor area, net floor area, or usable floor area even if floor
area was chosen as the functional unit. A study on life cycle energy
use and GHG emission of residential density also showed that the
choice of functional unit was important when investigating urban
density [230]. Choices of different functional units (or reference
area) can lead to huge differences in the final results arising from
analysis of embodied energy of net zero energy buildings [156].
Due to the high density of cement and concrete, the global warm-
ing potential might not appear to be high if mass (kg) of material
was chosen as the functional unit (0.819 kgCO2-eq/kg and
0.137 kgCO2-eq/kg respectively), when compared with materials
such as rock wool (1.511 kgCO2-eq/kg). If volume of the material
(m3) was used as the functional unit, the global warming potentials
of cement and concrete would become much higher than that of
rock wool (2579.85 kgCO2-eq/m3 for cement, 326.06 kgCO2-eq/m3
for concrete and 90.66 kgCO2-eq/m3 for rock wool) [197]. The dif-
ference in GHG emission of a larger hotel (in GFA) was found to be
14% more than a smaller hotel when GFA was employed as the
functional unit. The difference would become 67% when the func-
tional unit was ‘‘one guest night’’ [53]. These results showed that
the choice of functional unit can even affect the understanding
and interpretation of life cycle study results.
8. Limitations of LCA, LCEA and LCCO2A as decision making
support tools
It is generally recognized that all the three streams of methods
of life cycle studies can be used to evaluate and compare the envi-
ronmental impacts of building designs. However, there are some
drawbacks which are common to the three streams and impair
their usefulness as decision making support tools. Broadly speak-
ing, drawbacks can be classified into four major categories accord-
ing to their boundary scoping, methodology framework, data
inventories, and practices. Table 8 shows a summary of limitations
for each category for using life cycle studies as decision making
support tools.
8.1. Boundary scoping
 As the assessment itself only focuses on environmental impacts,
it does not cater for any quality, energetic, structural nor aes-
thetic requirements [231].
 Even the focus is often limited to the search for environmental
optima, some environmental qualities are still not included in
LCA studies. Generally, conventional LCA does not take into

Table 8
A summary of limitations of life cycle studies as decision making support tools.

Category
Boundary scoping
Methodology framework
Data inventories
Practices
Limitations
 Only focuses on environmental impacts
 Some environmental qualities such as indoor air quality are not included
 Economic and social dimensions of sustainability are not included
 Environmental impacts are assumed to be constant over time
 Geographic site specific factors are not included
 Different tools may include different types of impact categories
 Different studies may adopt different normalization factor, grouping or weighting methods
 Different studies may have different assumptions on building configurations, climate conditions, etc.
 Assumptions in studies may lead to uncertainties
 Materials/products from different manufactures cannot be compared
 A lack of inventories for new innovative materials
 Availability and uncertainty of inventory data can affect results
 The lack of benchmarks in LCA results
 Life cycle evaluations of buildings are more complicated than conventional products
 Reluctance to move design timeline
 A lack of chain management responsibilities
408 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413
account the building related functions in a user perspective, for
example building indoor air and thermal comfort were not
included [28,232] such that it overlooks important indoor envi-
ronmental problems such as human health [233], occupational
health or well-being effect [164] in building assessment. Failing
to include this may result in product or process optimizations at
the expense of occupants’ or workers’ health [234] and well-
being.
 LCA cannot be fully utilized for catering for sustainability
assessments which embrace the environmental, economic and
social dimensions. For example it does not consider financial
feasibility or life cycle cost, even though some tools like BEES
do incorporate the financial considerations into decision mak-
ing by allowing users to input their own relative importance
weightings distinguishing between financial and environmental
considerations. Almost all these tools do not take social consid-
erations into account.
 Most LCA studies do not cover time as an important aspect in
their analysis by assuming the impacts are constant over time
[232,235].
 Most LCA studies do not consider site specificity or differences
in geographical site locations [236]. Factors such as human pop-
ulation density and ecological properties of the environment are
generally not included in LCA studies [237,238]. It was even
found that the life cycle impacts of buildings in southern Euro-
pean countries were smaller than those in middle and north
European countries on average. Climatic conditions are one of
the reasons accounting for differences in these results [239].
As building development is a site specific process, several local
impacts, e.g. building’s effect on surrounding microclimate and
solar access for adjacent buildings may need to be considered in
LCA [240].
8.2. Methodology framework
Some drawbacks are inherited by the flexibility in the method-
ology choices being provided within the LCA framework in com-
plying with the details of each individual step. For example:
 The number and type of impact categories used for categorizing
the environmental impacts are up to the discretion of users
even though it gives user flexibility to decide what consider-
ation that should be accounted for [232]. As a result, different
impact categories were used in different LCA software tools.
For instance, water extraction is included in ENVEST but not
included in ATHENA.
 Different studies may use different normalization factors,
grouping methods or weighting factors given normalization,
grouping and weighting are optional steps in LCA studies. In
consequence, the findings derived from different studies may
not be fully comparable and differences may occur for different
products.
 Different studies may use different specific properties like
layout, climate, comfort requirements, local regulations, etc.
 LCA is merely a model and simplification of reality, so assump-
tions made will generate uncertainties on different levels:
model, scenario and parameter uncertainties. For instance, dif-
ferent studies use different lifespan assumptions [193,241].
Parameter uncertainty can be enhanced by data gaps, resulting
in less accurate data to be used.
8.3. Data inventories
Some drawbacks are attributed by the characteristics of data
inventories and are listed as follows:
 All the methods developed so far are not primarily targeted at
comparing propriety products or products from different man-
ufacturers as the databases employed for these methods are
mostly derived from industry-average data [33,242,243].
 There is always a lack of inventory data for some new innova-
tive materials e.g. phase-change materials which renders com-
parisons against conventional materials difficult.
 The availability and quality (precision, completeness, age, geo-
graphical and technological properties, representativeness,
transparency and uncertainty analysis) of data greatly influence
the results of an Life Cycle study [244].
8.4. Practices
 Difficulties encountered in carrying out a full LCA of a building
as LCA was mainly developed for designing low environmental
impact products. Buildings are more complicated than a single
conventional product as they have a comparatively long life,
they undergo changes often, they have multiple functions, they
contain many different components, they are normally unique
[76]. The evaluation of buildings also involves many site specific
or site-dependent data covering spatial difference [232].
 The lack of benchmarks may even render regulators difficult to
make the LCA mandatory for assessing building designs as they
will open to great challenges in courts.
 There is always a reluctance to move design time lines to
accommodate the extra time needed for an LCA even though
the design may offer clear financial, environmental and even
social benefits [245].
 Lack of chain management responsibility can be a basic barrier
of LCA and top level management may not have the commit-
ment to LCA [246].
As mentioned previously, the variants LCEA and LCCO2A suffer
from some additional drawbacks due to their limited scopes of
focuses. LCEA focuses only on energy input without considering
the quality of energy, the impacts of other inputs or environmental
loadings. LCCO2A only focuses on CO2 equivalent emissions with-
out considering the other environmental loadings or any resources
input. Accordingly, the results obtained from these two streams
may not truly reflect the total environmental impacts imposed
by building designs.
9. Conclusion
In this paper, different aspects of three streams of methods of
life cycle studies, namely LCA, LCEA, LCCO2A, were reviewed. The
studied aspects included their evaluation objectives, methodolo-
gies, findings and as well as their limitations of use as decision
making support tools. Results revealed that they all share some
similarities in the overall objective in evaluating the impacts over
the life cycle of building construction. However, there are also dif-
ferences among them. The major focus of evaluation of LCEA is on
energy input, LCCO2A is on carbon-equivalent inputs and LCA is on
both environmental inputs and outputs. Despite differences in
evaluation focuses of evaluation and complexities of methodolo-
gies, all of them pointed to the same conclusion that the use-phase
of a building contributes the largest life cycle environmental
impacts with their structural materials dominating the share.
However, major discrepancies in findings are observed among
the three streams when different compositions of fuel mixes are
used in power generation, or when the overall impacts are not con-
tributed mostly by greenhouse gases emissions. The choice of func-
tional units can also lead to discrepancies in study results.
Hitherto, there are no solid guidelines on which stream of methods
 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413
should be applied under specific circumstances. Although they can
be applied for comparing different building designs with respect to
their environmental impacts, there are still some drawbacks in
boundary scoping, methodology framework, data inventory and
practices, which impairs their usefulness as a decision making sup-
port tool. Conceivably, the usefulness of LCA can be further
enhanced in building construction by standardizing the require-
ments for individual studies on the boundary scoping, methodol-
ogy choices and data inventories so as to establish benchmarks
for different types of buildings. Also, it is important to extend the
current scope of LCA to include effects of indoor environmental
qualities, building location as well as social considerations. Or it
can apply the fundamental LCA concept to formulate the building
environmental assessment schemes embracing all these aspects.
Of equal importance is to search for effective policy governance
measures to encourage building designers and developers to apply
life cycle study in early design stage even though it may slightly
prolong the tight building design schedule.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the Hong Kong Polytechnic
University for providing the funding support through the Grants
No: 3-ZG87.
References
[1] United Nations Environment Programme. Buildings and climate change:
summary for decision-makers; 2008.
[2] United Nations Environment Programme. Common carbon metric for
measuring energy use and reporting greenhouse gas emissions from
building operations; 2009.
[3] ISO. ISO 14041: environmental management—life cycle assessment—goal and
scope definition and inventory analysis. Brussels; 1998.
[4] ISO. ISO 14042 environmental management—life cycle assessment—life cycle
impact assessment. Geneva; 2000.
[5] ISO. ISO 14043: environmental management—life cycle assessment—life cycle
interpretation. Geneva; 2000.
[6] ISO. ISO 14040:2006 – environmental management – life cycle assessment –
principles and framework. Geneva; 2006.
[7] De Meester B, Dewulf J, Verbeke S, Janssens A, Van Langenhove H. Exergetic
life-cycle assessment (ELCA) for resource consumption evaluation in the built
environment. Build Environ 2009;44:11–7.
[8] Liu M, Li B, Yao R. A generic model of exergy assessment for the
environmental impact of building lifecycle. Energy Build 2010;42:1482–90.
[9] Rocco MV, Colombo E, Sciubba E. Advances in exergy analysis: a novel
assessment of the extended exergy accounting method. Appl Energy
2014;113:1405–20.
[10] ISO. ISO 14044: environmental management – life cycle assessment –
requirements and guidelines. Geneva; 2006.
[11] Suh S, Huppes G. Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. J Clean Prod
2005;13:687–97.
[12] Herrmann IT, Moltesen A. Does it matter which Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
tool you choose? – a comparative assessment of SimaPro and GaBi. J Clean
Prod 2014.
[13] Huijbregts MAJ. Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 1998;3:273–80.
[14] Ortiz O, Castells F, Sonnemann G. Sustainability in the construction industry:
a review of recent developments based on LCA. Constr Build Mater
2009;23:28–39.
[15] Blengini GA, Di Carlo T. The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and
materials in the LCA of low energy buildings. Energy Build 2010;42:869–80.
[16] Eldh P, Johansson J. Weighting in LCA based on ecotaxes – development of a
mid-point method and experiences from case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2006;11:81–8.
[17] Bare JC, Gloria TP. Environmental impact assessment taxonomy providing
comprehensive coverage of midpoints, endpoints, damages, and areas of
protection. J Clean Prod 2008;16:1021–35.
[18] Curran MA. Encyclopedia of ecology. Elsevier; 2008.
[19] Buyle M, Braet J, Audenaert A. Life cycle assessment in the construction
sector: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;26:379–88.
[20] Global BRE. Methodology for environmental profiles of construction
products: product category rules for type III environmental product
declaration of construction products. Bracknell, UK: IHS BRE Press; 2009.
[21] Sleeswijk AW, van Oers LFCM, Guinée JB, Struijs J, Huijbregts MAJ.
Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: an LCA of the global and
European economic systems in the year 2000. Sci Total Environ
2008;390:227–40.
409
[22] Heijungs R, Guinée J, Kleijn R, Rovers V. Bias in normalization: causes,
consequences, detection and remedies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2006;12:211–6.
[23] Finnveden G, Hofstetter P, Bare J, Basson L, Ciroth A, Mettier T, et al.
Normalization, grouping and weighting in life cycle impact assessment. Life-
cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. Pensacola,
Florida: SETAC Press; 2002. p. 177–208.
[24] Ahlroth S. The use of valuation and weighting sets in environmental impact
assessment. Resour Conserv Recycl 2014;85:34–41.
[25] Pennington DW, Yue PL. Options for comparison of process design
alternatives in terms of regional environmental impacts. J Clean Prod
2000;8:1–9.
[26] Cole RJ. Emerging trends in building environmental assessment methods.
Build Res Inform 1998;26:3–16.
[27] Levin H. Systematic evaluation and assessment of building environmental
performance. In: Proceedings of second international conference buildings
and environment; 1997. p. 3–10.
[28] Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, et al.
Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage
2009;91:1–21.
[29] Schmidt W-P, Sullivan J. Weighting in life cycle assessments in a global
context. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2002;7:5–10.
[30] Fay R, Treloar G, Iyer-Raniga U. Life-cycle energy analysis of buildings: a case
study. Build Res Inform 2000;28:31–41.
[31] González MJ, García Navarro J. Assessment of the decrease of CO2 emissions
in the construction field through the selection of materials: practical case
study of three houses of low environmental impact. Build Environ
2006;41:902–9.
[32] Peuportier BL. Life cycle assessment applied to the comparative evaluation of
single family houses in the French context. Energy Build 2001;33:443–50.
[33] Heinonen J, Junnila S. A carbon consumption comparison of rural and urban
lifestyles. Sustainability 2011;3:1234–49.
[34] Junnila S. Life cycle assessment of environmentally significant aspects of an
office building. Nord J Surv Real Estate Res 2004.
[35] Leontief W. Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an
input–output approach. Rev Econ Stat 1970;52:262–71.
[36] Hendrickson C, Horvath A, Joshi S, Lave L. Peer reviewed: economic input–
output models for environmental life-cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol
1998;32:184A–91A.
[37] Stephan A, Crawford RH, de Myttenaere K. Towards a comprehensive life
cycle energy analysis framework for residential buildings. Energy Build
2012;55:592–600.
[38] Hammond G, Jones C. Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) Version 2.0.
Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Bath; 2011.
[39] Huberman N, Pearlmutter D. A life-cycle energy analysis of building materials
in the Negev desert. Energy Build 2008;40:837–48.
[40] Kofoworola OF, Gheewala SH. Life cycle energy assessment of a typical office
building in Thailand. Energy Build 2009;41:1076–83.
[41] Baird G, Alcorn A, Haslam P. The energy embodied in building materials –
updated New Zealand coefficients and their significance. IPENZ Trans
1997;24:46–54.
[42] Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ, Hondo H, Horvath A, Huppes G, et al. System
boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ
Sci Technol 2004;38:657–64.
[43] Suh S. Functions, commodities and environmental impacts in an ecological–
economic model. Ecol Econ 2004;48:451–67.
[44] Treloar GJ, Crawford RH. Database of embodied energy and water values for
materials. Melbourne; 2010.
[45] Adalberth K, Almgren A, Petersen EH. Life cycle assessment of four multi-
family buildings; 2001.
[46] Cole RJ, Kernan PC. Life-cycle energy use in office buildings. Build Environ
1996;31:307–17.
[47] Aittola J, Sainio S, Hausen A. A survey of life cycle energy consumption
programs, TAKE Rep. 37. Espoo, Finland; n.d.
[48] Escrivá-Escrivá G, Álvarez-Bel C, Peñalvo-López E. New indices to assess
building energy efficiency at the use stage. Energy Build 2011;43:476–84.
[49] Ascione F, Bianco N, De Masi RF, Vanoli GP. Rehabilitation of the building
envelope of hospitals: achievable energy savings and microclimatic control
on varying the HVAC systems in Mediterranean climates. Energy Build
2013;60:125–38.
[50] Ramesh T, Prakash R, Shukla KK. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an
overview. Energy Build 2010;42:1592–600.
[51] Utama A, Gheewala SH. Life cycle energy of single landed houses in Indonesia.
Energy Build 2008;40:1911–6.
[52] Utama A, Gheewala SH. Indonesian residential high rise buildings: a life cycle
energy assessment. Energy Build 2009;41:1263–8.
[53] Filimonau V, Dickinson J, Robbins D, Huijbregts MAJ. Reviewing the carbon
footprint analysis of hotels: Life Cycle Energy Analysis (LCEA) as a holistic
method for carbon impact appraisal of tourist accommodation. J Clean Prod
2011;19:1917–30.
[54] Junnila S, Horvath A, Guggemos AA. Life-cycle assessment of office buildings
in Europe and the United States. J Infrastruct Syst 2006;12:10–7.
[55] Aye L, Ngo T, Crawford RH, Gammampila R, Mendis P. Life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building
modules. Energy Build 2012;47:159–68.
[56] Baek C, Park S-H, Suzuki M, Lee S-H. Life cycle carbon dioxide assessment tool
for buildings in the schematic design phase. Energy Build 2013;61:275–87.
410 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413
[57] Han G, Srebric J, Enache-Pommer E. Variability of optimal solutions for
building components based on comprehensive life cycle cost analysis. Energy
Build 2014;79:223–31.
[58] Ortiz O, Castells F, Sonnemann G. Operational energy in the life cycle of
residential dwellings: the experience of Spain and Colombia. Appl Energy
2010;87:673–80.
[59] Assiego de Larriva R, Calleja Rodríguez G, Cejudo López JM, Raugei M, Fullana
i Palmer P. A decision-making LCA for energy refurbishment of buildings:
conditions of comfort. Energy Build 2014;70:333–42.
[60] Rodrigues C, Freire F. Integrated life-cycle assessment and thermal dynamic
simulation of alternative scenarios for the roof retrofit of a house. Build
Environ 2014;81:204–15.
[61] United Nations Environment Programme. Buildings and climate change:
summary for decision-makers. United Nations; 2009.
[62] Keolian G, Blanchard S, Reppe P. Life cycle energy, costs and strategies for
improving a single family house. J Ind Ecol 2001;4:135–57.
[63] Kua HW, Wong CL. Analysing the life cycle greenhouse gas emission and
energy consumption of a multi-storied commercial building in Singapore
from an extended system boundary perspective. Energy Build 2012;51:6–14.
[64] Chwieduk D. Towards sustainable-energy buildings. Appl Energy
2003;76:211–7.
[65] Shah VP, Debella DC, Ries RJ. Life cycle assessment of residential heating and
cooling systems in four regions in the United States. Energy Build
2008;40:503–13.
[66] Chen P-H, Kan M-S. Integrating energy simulation in energy saving analysis of
Taiwan’s green hospital buildings. In: Proceedings of the 31st International
Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining (ISARC
2014); 2014.
[67] ASHRAE. Energy estimating and modeling methods. ASHRAE; 2001.
[68] Crawley DB, Hand JW, Kummert M, Griffith BT. Contrasting the capabilities of
building energy performance simulation programs. Build Environ
2008;43:661–73.
[69] Van der Veken J, Saelens D, Verbeeck G, Hens H. Comparison of steady-state
and dynamic building energy simulation programs. Proceedings of the
conference performance of exterior envelopes of whole buildings
IX. Atlanta: ASHRAE; 2004.
[70] Scheuer C, Keoleian GA, Reppe P. Life cycle energy and environmental
performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design
implications. Energy Build 2003;35:1049–64.
[71] Beccali M, Cellura M, Fontana M, Longo S, Mistretta M. Energy retrofit of a
single-family house: life cycle net energy saving and environmental benefits.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;27:283–93.
[72] Chulsukon P, Haberl JS, Degelman LO, Sylvester KE. Development and analysis
of a sustainable low energy house in a hot and humid climate. In: Proceedings
of the thirteenth symposium on improving building systems in hot and
humid climates; 2002.
[73] Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland. Public sector energy monitoring and
reporting system: frequently asked questions; 2013.
[74] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories: vol. 2 – Energy; 2006.
[75] World Resources Institute. Emission factors from cross-sector tools; 2012.
[76] Zabalza Bribián I, Aranda Usón A, Scarpellini S. Life cycle assessment in
buildings: state-of-the-art and simplified LCA methodology as a complement
for building certification. Build Environ 2009;44:2510–20.
[77] Basbagill J, Flager F, Lepech M, Fischer M. Application of life-cycle assessment
to early stage building design for reduced embodied environmental impacts.
Build Environ 2013;60:81–92.
[78] Hammond G, Jones C. Inventory of Carbon & Energy: ICE; 2008.
[79] Jeong Y-S, Lee S-E, Huh J-H. Estimation of CO2 emission of apartment
buildings due to major construction materials in the Republic of Korea.
Energy Build 2012;49:437–42.
[80] Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R. Carbon implications of end-of-life
management of building materials. Resour Conserv Recycl 2009;53:276–86.
[81] You F, Hu D, Zhang H, Guo Z, Zhao Y, Wang B, et al. Carbon emissions in the
life cycle of urban building system in China—a case study of residential
buildings. Ecol Complex 2011;8:201–12.
[82] Pommer K, Pade C. Guidelines – uptake of carbon dioxide in the life cycle
inventory of concrete. Nordic Innovation Centre; 2006.
[83] Oss HG, Padovani AC. Cement manufacture and the environment Part II:
Environmental challenges and opportunities. J Ind Ecol 2003;7:93–126.
[84] Hong T, Ji C, Jang M, Park HS. Conversion method for obtaining emission data
from the life cycle inventory database of foreign countries. J Manage Eng
2013:04014059.
[85] Gajda J, Miller F. Concrete as a sink for atmospheric CO2: a literature review
and estimation of CO2 absorption by Portland cement concrete. R&D Serial no.
2255; 2000.
[86] Lagerblad B. CO2 uptake during the concrete life cycle: carbon dioxide uptake
during concrete life cycle – state of the art; 2005.
[87] Kjellsen KO, Guimaraes M, Nilsson Å. CO2 uptake during the concrete life
cycle: the CO2 balance of concrete in a life cycle perspective; 2005.
[88] Chau CK, Hui WK, Ng WY, Powell G. Assessment of CO2 emissions reduction
in high-rise concrete office buildings using different material use options.
Resour Conserv Recycl 2012;61:22–34.
[89] IPCC. Good practice guidance and uncertainty management in National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories; 2000.
[90] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Reduction Model (WARM)
Version 12; 2012.
[91] Amini HR, Reinhart DR, Mackie KR. Determination of first-order landfill gas
modeling parameters and uncertainties. Waste Manage (New York, NY)
2012;32:305–16.
[92] Doka G. Life cycle inventories of waste treatment services. Ecoinvent report
no. 13. Dübendorf: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories; 2003.
[93] Zhao W, van der Voet E, Zhang Y, Huppes G. Life cycle assessment of
municipal solid waste management with regard to greenhouse gas
emissions: case study of Tianjin, China. Sci Total Environ 2009;407:1517–26.
[94] Doka G, Hischier R. Waste treatment and assessment of long-term emissions.
Int J Life Cycle Assess 2004;10:77–84 (8pp).
[95] Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Steen B. Impact assessment of resources and land
use. Life-cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practise. Pensacola,
FL: SETAC Press; 2002.
[96] Imhoff ML, Bounoua L, DeFries R, Lawrence WT, Stutzer D, Tucker CJ, et al. The
consequences of urban land transformation on net primary productivity in
the United States. Remote Sens Environ 2004;89:434–43.
[97] Zhao T, Brown DG, Bergen KM. Increasing Gross Primary Production (GPP) in
the urbanizing landscapes of southeastern Michigan. Photogramm Eng
Remote Sens 2007;73:1159–67.
[98] Zhang W, Huang B, Luo D. Effects of land use and transportation on carbon
sources and carbon sinks: a case study in Shenzhen, China. Landsc Urban
Plann 2014;122:175–85.
[99] Hendrickson C, Lange D, Mashayekh Y, Nagengast A, Zhang S. Estimation of
comparative life cycle costs and greenhouse gas emissions of residential
Brownfield and Greenfield developments. In: Amekudzi AA, Otto SL, Carlson
DJ, Bomar MA, editors. Green streets, highways, and development 2013:
advancing the practice, vol. 2013. ASCE Publications; 2013. p. 306–21.
[100] Weidema B, Wenzel H, Petersen C, Hansen K. The product, functional unit and
reference flows in LCA. Danish Ministry of The Environment; 2004.
[101] Su X, Zhang X. Environmental performance optimization of window–wall
ratio for different window type in hot summer and cold winter zone in China
based on life cycle assessment. Energy Build 2010;42:198–202.
[102] Van Ooteghem K, Xu L. The life-cycle assessment of a single-storey retail
building in Canada. Build Environ 2012;49:212–26.
[103] Tae S, Shin S, Woo J, Roh S. The development of apartment house life cycle
CO2 simple assessment system using standard apartment houses of South
Korea. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:1454–67.
[104] Asdrubali F, Baldassarri C, Fthenakis V. Life cycle analysis in the construction
sector: guiding the optimization of conventional Italian buildings. Energy
Build 2013;64:73–89.
[105] König H, De Cristofaro ML. Benchmarks for life cycle costs and life cycle
assessment of residential buildings. Build Res Inform 2012;40:558–80.
[106] Mosteiro-Romero M, Krogmann U, Wallbaum H, Ostermeyer Y, Senick JS,
Andrews CJ. Relative importance of electricity sources and construction
practices in residential buildings: a Swiss-US comparison of energy related
life-cycle impacts. Energy Build 2014;68:620–31.
[107] Cuéllar-Franca RM, Azapagic A. Environmental impacts of the UK residential
sector: life cycle assessment of houses. Build Environ 2012;54:86–99.
[108] Russell-Smith SV, Lepech MD, Fruchter R, Meyer YB. Sustainable target value
design: integrating life cycle assessment and target value design to improve
building energy and environmental performance. J Clean Prod 2014.
[109] Iyer-Raniga U, Wong JPC. Evaluation of whole life cycle assessment for
heritage buildings in Australia. Build Environ 2012;47:138–49.
[110] Chang Y, Ries RJ, Lei S. The embodied energy and emissions of a high-rise
education building: a quantification using process-based hybrid life cycle
inventory model. Energy Build 2012;55:790–8.
[111] 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;408:2435–43.
[112] Alshamrani OS, Galal K, Alkass S. Integrated LCA–LEED sustainability
assessment model for structure and envelope systems of school buildings.
Build Environ 2014;80:61–70.
[113] Ferreira JV, Domingos I. Assessment of Portuguese thermal building
legislation in an energetic and environmental perspective. Energy Build
2011;43:3729–35.
[114] Desideri U, Arcioni L, Leonardi D, Cesaretti L, Perugini P, Agabitini E, et al.
Design of a multipurpose ‘‘zero energy consumption’’ building according to
European Directive 2010/31/EU: life cycle assessment. Energy Build
2014;80:585–97.
[115] Stazi F, Tomassoni E, Bonfigli C, Di Perna C. Energy, comfort and
environmental assessment of different building envelope techniques in a
Mediterranean climate with a hot dry summer. Appl Energy
2014;134:176–96.
[116] Pajchrowski G, Noskowiak A, Lewandowska A, Strykowski W. Materials
composition or energy characteristic – what is more important in
environmental life cycle of buildings? Build Environ 2014;72:15–27.
[117] Lewandowska A, Noskowiak A, Pajchrowski G. Comparative life cycle
assessment of passive and traditional residential buildings’ use with a
special focus on energy-related aspects. Energy Build 2013;67:635–46.
[118] Jang M, Hong T, Ji C. Hybrid LCA model for assessing the embodied
environmental impacts of buildings in South Korea. Environ Impact Assess
Rev 2015;50:143–55.
[119] Rincón L, Castell A, Pérez G, Solé C, Boer D, Cabeza LF. Evaluation of the
environmental impact of experimental buildings with different constructive
 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413
systems using material flow analysis and life cycle assessment. Appl Energy
2013;109:544–52.
[120] Dylewski R, Adamczyk J. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of building thermal
insulation materials. In: Pacheco-torgal F, Cabeza L, Labrincha J, De
Magalhaes A, editors. Eco-efficient construction and building
materials. Elsevier; 2014. p. 267–86.
[121] Baldinelli G, Asdrubali F, Baldassarri C, Bianchi F, D’Alessandro F, Schiavoni S,
et al. Energy and environmental performance optimization of a wooden
window: a holistic approach. Energy Build 2014;79:114–31.
[122] Rincón L, Coma J, Pérez G, Castell A, Boer D, Cabeza LF. Environmental
performance of recycled rubber as drainage layer in extensive green roofs. A
comparative life cycle assessment. Build Environ 2014;74:22–30.
[123] Melià P, Ruggieri G, Sabbadini S, Dotelli G. Environmental impacts of natural
and conventional building materials: a case study on earth plasters. J Clean
Prod 2014;80:179–86.
[124] Feng H, Hewage K. Lifecycle assessment of living walls: air purification and
energy performance. J Clean Prod 2014;69:91–9.
[125] Marinković SB. Life cycle assessment (LCA) aspects of concrete. In: Pacheco-
Torgal F, Jalali S, Labrincha J, John VM, editors. Eco-efficient
concrete. Elsevier; 2013. p. 45–80.
[126] Pretot S, Collet F, Garnier C. Life cycle assessment of a hemp concrete wall:
impact of thickness and coating. Build Environ 2014;72:223–31.
[127] Lamnatou C, Chemisana D. Photovoltaic-green roofs: a life cycle assessment
approach with emphasis on warm months of Mediterranean climate. J Clean
Prod 2014;72:57–75.
[128] Belussi L, Mariotto M, Meroni I, Zevi C, Svaldi SD. LCA study and testing of a
photovoltaic ceramic tile prototype. Renew Energy 2015;74:263–70.
[129] Simons A, Firth SK. Life-cycle assessment of a 100% solar fraction thermal
supply to a European apartment building using water-based sensible heat
storage. Energy Build 2011;43:1231–40.
[130] Pargana N, Pinheiro MD, Silvestre JD, de Brito J. Comparative environmental
life cycle assessment of thermal insulation materials of buildings. Energy
Build 2014;82:466–81.
[131] Batouli SM, Zhu Y, Nar M, D’Souza NA. Environmental performance of kenaf-
fiber reinforced polyurethane: a life cycle assessment approach. J Clean Prod
2014;66:164–73.
[132] La Rosa AD, Recca A, Gagliano A, Summerscales J, Latteri A, Cozzo G, et al.
Environmental impacts and thermal insulation performance of innovative
composite solutions for building applications. Constr Build Mater
2014;55:406–14.
[133] Kua HW, Kamath S. An attributional and consequential life cycle assessment
of substituting concrete with bricks. J Clean Prod 2014;81:190–200.
[134] Stichnothe H, Azapagic A. Life cycle assessment of recycling PVC window
frames. Resour Conserv Recycl 2013;71:40–7.
[135] Proietti S, Desideri U, Sdringola P, Zepparelli F. Carbon footprint of a reflective
foil and comparison with other solutions for thermal insulation in building
envelope. Appl Energy 2013;112:843–55.
[136] Koroneos C, Tsarouhis M. Exergy analysis and life cycle assessment of solar
heating and cooling systems in the building environment. J Clean Prod
2012;32:52–60.
[137] De Gracia A, Rincón L, Castell A, Jiménez M, Boer D, Medrano M, et al. Life
cycle assessment of the inclusion of phase change materials (PCM) in
experimental buildings. Energy Build 2010;42:1517–23.
[138] Pajchrowski G, Noskowiak A, Lewandowska A, Strykowski W. Wood as a
building material in the light of environmental assessment of full life cycle of
four buildings. Constr Build Mater 2014;52:428–36.
[139] Serrano S, Barreneche C, Rincón L, Boer D, Cabeza LF. Optimization of three
new compositions of stabilized rammed earth incorporating PCM: thermal
properties characterization and LCA. Constr Build Mater 2013;47:872–8.
[140] Audenaert A, De Cleyn SH, Buyle M. LCA of low-energy flats using the Eco-
indicator 99 method: impact of insulation materials. Energy Build
2012;47:68–73.
[141] Cho YS, Kim JH, Hong SU, Kim Y. LCA application in the optimum design of
high rise steel structures. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:3146–53.
[142] Jing Y-Y, Bai H, Wang J-J, Liu L. Life cycle assessment of a solar combined
cooling heating and power system in different operation strategies. Appl
Energy 2012;92:843–53.
[143] De Gracia A, Navarro L, Castell A, Boer D, Cabeza LF. Life cycle assessment of a
ventilated facade with PCM in its air chamber. Sol Energy 2014;104:115–23.
[144] Castell A, Menoufi K, de Gracia A, Rincón L, Boer D, Cabeza LF. Life cycle
assessment of alveolar brick construction system incorporating phase change
materials (PCMs). Appl Energy 2013;101:600–8.
[145] Menoufi K, Castell A, Navarro L, Pérez G, Boer D, Cabeza LF. Evaluation of the
environmental impact of experimental cubicles using life cycle assessment: a
highlight on the manufacturing phase. Appl Energy 2012;92:534–44.
[146] Islam H, Jollands M, Setunge S, Ahmed I, Haque N. Life cycle assessment and
life cycle cost implications of wall assemblages designs. Energy Build
2014;84:33–45.
[147] Frenette CD, Bulle C, Beauregard R, Salenikovich A, Derome D. Using life cycle
assessment to derive an environmental index for light-frame wood wall
assemblies. Build Environ 2010;45:2111–22.
[148] Sumper A, Robledo-García M, Villafáfila-Robles R, Bergas-Jané J, Andrés-Peiró
J. Life-cycle assessment of a photovoltaic system in Catalonia (Spain). Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:3888–96.
411
[149] Mateus R, Neiva S, Bragança L, Mendonça P, Macieira M. Sustainability
assessment of an innovative lightweight building technology for partition
walls – comparison with conventional technologies. Build Environ
2013;67:147–59.
[150] Babaizadeh H, Hassan M. Life cycle assessment of nano-sized titanium
dioxide coating on residential windows. Constr Build Mater 2013;40:314–21.
[151] Stephan A, Stephan L. Reducing the total life cycle energy demand of recent
residential buildings in Lebanon. Energy 2014;74:618–37.
[152] Paulsen JS, Sposto RM. A life cycle energy analysis of social housing in Brazil:
case study for the program ‘‘MY HOUSE MY LIFE’’. Energy Build
2013;57:95–102.
[153] Ramesh T, Prakash R, Shukla KK. Life cycle energy analysis of a residential
building with different envelopes and climates in Indian context. Appl Energy
2012;89:193–202.
[154] Stephan A, Crawford RH, de Myttenaere K. A comprehensive assessment of
the life cycle energy demand of passive houses. Appl Energy
2013;112:23–34.
[155] Gustavsson L, Joelsson A. Life cycle primary energy analysis of residential
buildings. Energy Build 2010;42:210–20.
[156] Cellura M, Guarino F, Longo S, Mistretta M. Energy life-cycle approach in Net
zero energy buildings balance: operation and embodied energy of an Italian
case study. Energy Build 2014;72:371–81.
[157] Anastaselos D, Oxizidis S, Papadopoulos AM. Energy, environmental and
economic optimization of thermal insulation solutions by means of an
integrated decision support system. Energy Build 2011;43:686–94.
[158] Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R. Effect of thermal mass on life cycle primary
energy balances of a concrete- and a wood-frame building. Appl Energy
2012;92:462–72.
[159] Yu D, Tan H, Ruan Y. A future bamboo-structure residential building
prototype in China: life cycle assessment of energy use and carbon
emission. Energy Build 2011;43:2638–46.
[160] Gustavsson L, Joelsson A, Sathre R. Life cycle primary energy use and carbon
emission of an eight-storey wood-framed apartment building. Energy Build
2010;42:230–42.
[161] Bastos J, Batterman SA, Freire F. Life-cycle energy and greenhouse gas
analysis of three building types in a residential area in Lisbon. Energy Build
2014;69:344–53.
[162] Pd L, Palaniappan S. A case study on life cycle energy use of residential
building in Southern India. Energy Build 2014;80:247–59.
[163] Ramesh T, Prakash R, Shukla KK. Life cycle approach in evaluating energy
performance of residential buildings in Indian context. Energy Build
2012;54:259–65.
[164] Verbeeck G, Hens H. Life cycle inventory of buildings: a contribution analysis.
Build Environ 2010;45:964–7.
[165] Leckner M, Zmeureanu R. Life cycle cost and energy analysis of a Net Zero
Energy House with solar combisystem. Appl Energy 2011;88:232–41.
[166] Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R. Lifecycle primary energy analysis of low-
energy timber building systems for multi-storey residential buildings. Energy
Build 2014;81:84–97.
[167] Tae S, Baek C, Shin S. Life cycle CO2 evaluation on reinforced concrete
structures with high-strength concrete. Environ Impact Assess Rev
2011;31:253–60.
[168] Broun R, Menzies GF. Life cycle energy and environmental analysis of
partition wall systems in the UK. Proc Eng 2011;21:864–73.
[169] Schlanbusch RD, Jelle BP, Christie Sandberg LI, Fufa SM, Gao T. Integration of
life cycle assessment in the design of hollow silica nanospheres for thermal
insulation applications. Build Environ 2014;80:115–24.
[170] Beccali M, Cellura M, Longo S, Nocke B, Finocchiaro P. LCA of a solar heating
and cooling system equipped with a small water–ammonia absorption
chiller. Sol Energy 2012;86:1491–503.
[171] Bull J, Gupta A, Mumovic D, Kimpian J. Life cycle cost and carbon footprint of
energy efficient refurbishments to 20th century UK school buildings. Int J
Sustain Built Environ 2014;3:1–17.
[172] Blyberg L, Lang M, Lundstedt K, Schander M, Serrano E, Silfverhielm M, et al.
Glass, timber and adhesive joints – innovative load bearing building
components. Constr Build Mater 2014;55:470–8.
[173] Guardigli L, Monari F, Bragadin MA. Assessing environmental impact of green
buildings through LCA methods: a comparison between reinforced concrete
and wood structures in the European context. Proc Eng 2011;21:1199–206.
[174] Roh S, Tae S, Shin S, Woo J. Development of an optimum design program
(SUSB-OPTIMUM) for the life cycle CO2 assessment of an apartment house in
Korea. Build Environ 2014;73:40–54.
[175] Lai JHK. Carbon footprints of hotels: analysis of three archetypes in Hong
Kong. Sustain Cities Soc 2013.
[176] Sharma A, Shree V, Nautiyal H. Life cycle environmental assessment of an
educational building in Northern India: a case study. Sustain Cities Soc
2012;4:22–8.
[177] Tae S, Shin S, Kim H, Ha S, Lee J, Han S, et al. Life cycle environmental loads
and economic efficiencies of apartment buildings built with plaster board
drywall. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:4145–55.
[178] Wallhagen M, Glaumann M, Malmqvist T. Basic building life cycle
calculations to decrease contribution to climate change – case study on an
office building in Sweden. Build Environ 2011;46:1863–71.
412 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413
[179] Murakami S, Kato S, Ooka R, Shiraishi Y. Design of a porous-type residential
building model with low environmental load in hot and humid Asia. Energy
Build 2004;36:1181–9.
[180] Radhi H, Sharples S. Global warming implications of facade parameters: a life
cycle assessment of residential buildings in Bahrain. Environ Impact Assess
Rev 2013;38:99–108.
[181] Taborianski VM, Prado RTA. Methodology of CO2 emission evaluation in the
life cycle of office building façades. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2012;33:41–7.
[182] Sinha A, Kutnar A. Carbon footprint versus performance of aluminum, plastic,
and wood window frames from cradle to gate. Buildings 2012;2:542–53.
[183] Tarantini M, Loprieno AD, Porta PL. A life cycle approach to Green Public
Procurement of building materials and elements: a case study on windows.
Energy 2011;36:2473–82.
[184] Susca T. Enhancement of life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to include
the effect of surface albedo on climate change: comparing black and white
roofs. Environ Pollut (Barking, Essex: 1987) 2012;163:48–54.
[185] Park J, Tae S, Kim T. Life cycle CO2 assessment of concrete by compressive
strength on construction site in Korea. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2012;16:2940–6.
[186] Yang K-H, Seo E-A, Tae S-H. Carbonation and CO2 uptake of concrete. Environ
Impact Assess Rev 2014;46:43–52.
[187] Rossi E, Sales A. Carbon footprint of coarse aggregate in Brazilian
construction. Constr Build Mater 2014;72:333–9.
[188] Feiz R, Ammenberg J, Baas L, Eklund M, Helgstrand A, Marshall R. Improving
the CO2 performance of cement, Part I: Utilizing life-cycle assessment and
key performance indicators to assess development within the cement
industry. J Clean Prod 2014.
[189] Desideri U, Proietti S, Zepparelli F, Sdringola P, Bini S. Life cycle assessment of
a ground-mounted 1778 kWp photovoltaic plant and comparison with
traditional energy production systems. Appl Energy 2012;97:930–43.
[190] Ji C, Hong T, Park HS. Comparative analysis of decision-making methods for
integrating cost and CO2 emission – focus on building structural design.
Energy Build 2014;72:186–94.
[191] Stazi F, Mastrucci A, Munafò P. Life cycle assessment approach for the
optimization of sustainable building envelopes: an application on solar wall
systems. Build Environ 2012;58:278–88.
[192] Chau CK, Yik FWH, Hui WK, Liu HC, Yu HK. Environmental impacts of building
materials and building services components for commercial buildings in
Hong Kong. J Clean Prod 2007;15:1840–51.
[193] Ibn-Mohammed T, Greenough R, Taylor S, Ozawa-Meida L, Acquaye A.
Operational vs. embodied emissions in buildings—a review of current trends.
Energy Build 2013;66:232–45.
[194] Adalberth K. Energy use during the life cycle of single-unit dwellings:
examples. Build Environ 1997;32:321–9.
[195] Yohanis YG, Norton B. Life-cycle operational and embodied energy for a
generic single-storey office building in the UK. Energy 2002;27:77–92.
[196] Venkatarama Reddy B, Jagadish K. Embodied energy of common and
alternative building materials and technologies. Energy Build
2003;35:129–37.
[197] Kotaji S, Schuurmans A, Edwards S, editors. Life-cycle assessment in building
and construction: a state-of-art report. Pensacola: Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC); 2003.
[198] Harris DJ. A quantitative approach to the assessment of the environmental
impact of building materials. Build Environ 1999;34:751–8.
[199] Cole RJ, Wong KS. Minimising environmental impact of high-rise residential
buildings. In: Proceedings of housing for millions: the challenge ahead. Hong
Kong: Housing Authority; 1996. p. 262–5.
[200] Lützkendorf T, Foliente G, Balouktsi M, Wiberg AH. Net-zero buildings:
incorporating embodied impacts. Build Res Inform 2014;43:62–81.
[201] Guggemos AA, Horvath A. Comparison of environmental effects of steel- and
concrete-framed buildings. J Infrastruct Syst 2005;11:93–101.
[202] Asif M, Muneer T, Kelley R. Life cycle assessment: a case study of a dwelling
home in Scotland. Build Environ 2007;42:1391–4.
[203] Dimoudi A, Tompa C. Energy and environmental indicators related to
construction of office buildings. Resour Conserv Recycl 2008;53:86–95.
[204] Tiwari P, Parikh J. Cost of CO2 reduction in building construction. Energy
1995;20:531–47.
[205] Blengini GA. Life cycle assessment tools for sustainable development: case
studies for the mining and construction industries in Italy and Portugal.
Technical University of Lisbon; 2006.
[206] Chen T, Burnett J, Chau C. Analysis of embodied energy use in the residential
building of Hong Kong. Energy 2001;26:323–40.
[207] Yan H, Shen Q, Fan LCH, Wang Y, Zhang L. Greenhouse gas emissions in
building construction: a case study of One Peking in Hong Kong. Build
Environ 2010;45:949–55.
[208] Yung P, Lam KC, Yu C. An audit of life cycle energy analyses of buildings.
Habitat Int 2013;39:43–54.
[209] Ortiz O, Bonnet C, Bruno JC, Castells F. Sustainability based on LCM of
residential dwellings: a case study in Catalonia, Spain. Build Environ
2009;44:584–94.
[210] Li DZ, Chen HX, Hui ECM, Zhang JB, Li QM. A methodology for estimating the
life-cycle carbon efficiency of a residential building. Build Environ
2013;59:448–55.
[211] Teng J, Wu X. Eco-footprint-based life-cycle eco-efficiency assessment of
building projects. Ecol Ind 2014;39:160–8.
[212] Berggren B, Hall M, Wall M. LCE analysis of buildings – taking the step
towards Net Zero Energy Buildings. Energy Build 2013;62:381–91.
[213] Zabalza Bribián I, Valero Capilla A, Aranda Usón A. Life cycle assessment of
building materials: comparative analysis of energy and environmental
impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Build
Environ 2011;46:1133–40.
[214] Kneifel J. Life-cycle carbon and cost analysis of energy efficiency measures in
new commercial buildings. Energy Build 2010;42:333–40.
[215] Hong T, Kim J, Koo C. LCC and LCCO2 analysis of green roofs in elementary
schools with energy saving measures. Energy Build 2012;45:229–39.
[216] Arpke A, Hutzler N. Operational life-cycle assessment and life-cycle cost
analysis for water use in multioccupant buildings. J Archit Eng
2005;11:99–109.
[217] Lippiatt BC. Building for environmental and economic sustainability technical
manual and user guide. US: National Institute of Standards and Technology;
2007.
[218] Petersen AK, Solberg B. Greenhouse gas emissions, life-cycle inventory and
cost-efficiency of using laminated wood instead of steel construction.
Environ Sci Policy 2002;5:169–82.
[219] Gagnon L, Bélanger C, Uchiyama Y. Life-cycle assessment of electricity
generation options: the status of research in year 2001. Energy Policy
2002;30:1267–78.
[220] Cherubini F, Bird ND, Cowie A, Jungmeier G, Schlamadinger B, Woess-
Gallasch S. Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy
systems: key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resour Conserv Recycl
2009;53:434–47.
[221] Pacca S, Sivaraman D, Keoleian GA. Parameters affecting the life cycle
performance of PV technologies and systems. Energy Policy
2007;35:3316–26.
[222] Ayaz E, Yang F. Zero carbon isn’t really zero: why embodied carbon in
materials can’t be ignored; n.d. <http://www.di.net/articles/zero_carbon/>
[cited 071114].
[223] Turconi R, Tonini D, Nielsen CFB, Simonsen CG, Astrup T. Environmental
impacts of future low-carbon electricity systems: detailed life cycle
assessment of a Danish case study. Appl Energy 2014;132:66–73.
[224] Rubio Rodríguez MA, Feitó Cespón M, De Ruyck J, Ocaña Guevara VS, Verma
VK. Life cycle modeling of energy matrix scenarios, Belgian power and partial
heat mixes as case study. Appl Energy 2013;107:329–37.
[225] Batlles FJ, Rosiek S, Muñoz I, Fernández-Alba AR. Environmental assessment
of the CIESOL solar building after two years operation. Environ Sci Technol
2010;44:3587–93.
[226] Junnila S, Horvath A. Life-cycle environmental effects of an office building. J
Infrastruct Syst 2003;9:157–66.
[227] Kofoworola OF, Gheewala SH. Environmental life cycle assessment of a
commercial office building in Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2008;13:498–511.
[228] Citherlet S, Defaux T. Energy and environmental comparison of three variants
of a family house during its whole life span. Build Environ 2007;42:591–8.
[229] Dorer V, Weber A. Energy and CO2 emissions performance assessment of
residential micro-cogeneration systems with dynamic whole-building
simulation programs. Energy Convers Manage 2009;50:648–57.
[230] Norman J, MacLean HL, Kennedy CA. Comparing high and low residential
density: life-cycle analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. J
Urban Plann Develop 2006;132:10–21.
[231] Buyle M, Bract J, Audenaert A. LCA in the construction industry: a review. Int J
Energy Manage 2012;4:397–405.
[232] Erlandsson M, Borg M. Generic LCA-methodology applicable for buildings,
constructions and operation services—today practice and development
needs. Build Environ 2003;38:919–38.
[233] Jönsson Å. Is it feasible to address indoor climate issues in LCA? Environ
Impact Assess Rev 2000;20:241–59.
[234] Hellweg S, Demou E, Bruzzi R, Meijer A, Rosenbaum RK, Huijbregts MAJ, et al.
Integrating human indoor air pollutant exposure within life cycle impact
assessment. Environ Sci Technol 2009;43:1670–9.
[235] Jeswani HK, Azapagic A, Schepelmann P, Ritthoff M. Options for broadening
and deepening the LCA approaches. J Clean Prod 2010;18:120–7.
[236] Crawley D, Aho I. Building environmental assessment methods: applications
and development trends. Build Res Inform 1999;27:300–8.
[237] Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Wegener
Sleeswijk A, et al. Environmental life cycle assessment of products.
Guidelines and backgrounds. Leiden, The Netherlands: Centre of
Environmental Sciences; 1992.
[238] Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Oers L van, Meent D van de, Vermeire T, Rikken M,
et al. LCA impact assessment of toxic releases. Generic modelling of fate,
exposure and effect for ecosystems and human beings with data for about
100 chemicals; n.d.
[239] Nemry F, Uihlein A. JRC scientific and technical reports: environmental
improvement potentials of residential buildings (IMPRO-building). Institute
for Prospective Technological Studies, European Commission; 2008.
[240] Kohler N, Moffatt S. Life-cycle analysis of the built environment. India
Environ 2003:2–3.
[241] Mequignon M, Adolphe L, Thellier F, Ait Haddou H. Impact of the lifespan of
building external walls on greenhouse gas index. Build Environ
2013;59:654–61.
[242] Thormark C. Environmental analysis of a building with reused building
materials. Int J Low Energy Sustain Build 2000:1.
 C.K. Chau et al. / Applied Energy 143 (2015) 395–413 413

[243] Prusinski J. Slag as a cementitious material. In: Lamond J, Pielert J, editors.
Significance of tests and properties of concrete and concrete-making
materials. West Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2006. p. 512–31.
[244] Menzies GF, Banfill PFG, Turan S. Life-cycle assessment and embodied
energy: a review. Proc ICE – Constr Mater 2007;160:135–43.
[245] Hes D. LCA study of ABS offices, Belconnen ACT. Centre for Design at RMIT;
2007.
[246] Clark G, Leeuw B. How to improve adoption of LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess
1999;4:184–7.