Journal of Building Engineering 38 (2021) 102180

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

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

A schematic framework for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Green Building
Rating System (GBRS)
Thais Sartori *, Robin Drogemuller , Sara Omrani , Fiona Lamari
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

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

Keywords: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) tools link the environmental context of a building to the design decision-
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) making framework. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Green Building Rating Systems (GBRS) are the two ap­
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) proaches commonly used to holistically analyse the environmental performance of the whole building. While
Green Building Rating System (GBRS)
GBRS is mostly based on a checklist with many qualitative criteria, LCA compels decision-makers to base the
Software tools
analyses on numerical evidence, facilitating the comparison between design choices. Some GBRS, such as LEED,
BREEAM and Green Star, have been incorporating LCA as part of their assessment system. This practice brings
transparency to the design process and increases designers’ awareness of the building’s environmental impact.
Consequently, this paper aims to develop a schematic EIA framework within the design life cycle, proposing
future research directions to support its development. The framework was based in three parallel analyses: (1)
comparison between LCA and GBRS assessment methodologies, (2) analysis of the LCA parameters within GBRS,
and (3) investigation of LCA software tools focused on buildings that comply with GBRS requirements. The
research found that, rather than performing either a GBRS or an LCA, the most appropriate EIA methodology will
depend on the design life cycle stage. Graphical outputs and connection with 3D modelling will improve the
evaluation of environmental impacts as a process integrated with the design.

1. Introduction 3. Passive tools, such as Green Building Rating Systems (GBRS),

The building industry brings substantial benefits to the world’s so­
ciety and economy. However, such benefits come with significant
environmental impacts. It is estimated that 40% of the global green­
house gas (GHG) emissions derive from the building sector, including
the production of building materials and direct and indirect energy
consumption [1]. However, this high environmental cost also comes
with great potential to shift this scenario. Hence buildings have become
a focus of GHG emission reduction initiatives.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) tools are developed to allow
decision-makers to understand the impacts of their choices by con­
necting the environmental context to the decision-making framework
[2]. EIA tools can be divided into three main groups:
1. Energy and ventilation modelling;
2. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tools;
guidelines or checklists and Environmental Product Declarations
(EPD).
Many studies of building impact assessments limited their analysis of
energy performance during the usage stage, focusing on type 1 of the EIA
classifications mentioned above [3,4]. However, especially with the
advance of nearly zero energy building (NZEB), when the new tech­
nologies allow buildings to decrease energy usage and apply cleaner
off-grid energy sources, embodied impacts derived from materials
became a more significant issue. Although operational energy still rep­
resents the highest part of the building’s life cycle, NZEB may lead to
buildings with a higher portion of embodied energy and embodied
carbon [5–7]. Therefore, to holistically analyse the performance of the
whole building throughout its life cycle, LCA and GBRS from the above
EIA classification are used.
The main goal of LCA is to address the potential environmental im­
pacts of all input and output flows within a product’s life cycle, from raw
material acquisition, manufacture, use, maintenance, until end-of-life

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: thais.goncalvessartori@hdr.qut.edu.au (T. Sartori).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102180
Received 10 September 2020; Received in revised form 3 November 2020; Accepted 15 December 2020
Available online 21 January 2021
2352-7102/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Sartori et al.
[8]. Due to the increasing interest of governmental groups on the
awareness of the impacts of the construction industry, LCA has become
more attractive, particularly to material manufacturers, through publi­
cation of environmental product declarations (EPD). EPDs communicate
environmental information of construction products, services and pro­
cesses, by quantifying all the input and output flows based on scientific
data [9]. In other words, EPD is a document owned by manufacturers
who wish to publicly disclose the LCA of their products. Although EPDs
do not guarantee a more sustainable construction material, the under­
standing of the chemical emissions can reduce the impact on the envi­
ronment by motivating changes in the manufacturing processes.
Likewise, it gives the decision-makers more responsibility for their
material choices, since EPDs allow them to make quantitative and
scientific-based comparisons.
Studies that applied LCA methodology for buildings started in the
’90s, and it has been growing ever since [10]. The European Committee
for Standardization (CEN) organized Technical Committees (TCs) to
develop standardised methods aiming the sustainability of buildings,
including EPDs. The CEN/TC 350 is structured in 6 working groups,
including environmental, social and economic performance of buildings
[11].An important contribution of CEN/CT 350 was the publication of
EN 15978 [12]. The British version of this standard supports the decision
making and documentation process and establishes the concepts to be
followed by all practitioners, e.g. system boundaries, function units and
reference study period. However, no regulation dictates the use of LCA
methodology for the assessment of the impacts of construction-related
activities [13].Fig. 1 shows the different stages of building Life Cycle
Assessment [12]: (A1 - 3) product stage, (A4-5) construction process,
(B1-7) use stage, (C1-4) end of life, (D) benefits and loads beyond the
system boundary. The assessment can be categorized by their scope,
considering only the product stage (cradle to gate), whole building
life-cycle (cradle to grave), or adding the impacts beyond end-of-life
(cradle to cradle).
GBRS are voluntary labelling schemes that measure the performance
of green buildings by assigning credits and weights to environmental
topics, sorted into appropriate categories. The concept of GBRS was
motivated by Green Building Councils (GBCs) around the world, aiming
to communicate to the market the extent of a building’s commitment to
sustainable development [14]. Owners or developers voluntarily submit
their building through a third-party evaluation process to validate the
green strategies applied. Since the introduction of GBRS, various rating
systems have been developed in different regions internationally. Some
of them can be easily adapted to other regions’ requirements, such as
SBTool, a generic rating system framework that assists local organiza­
tions to develop their own GBRS based on their region-specific context
[15].Table 1 shows information about six different Green Building
Rating Systems: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED), Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method (BREEAM), Green Star (GS), Haute Qualité Environ­
nementale1(HQE), Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Envi­
ronment Efficiency (CASBEE), and Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Nachhaltiges Bauen2 (DGNB). The rating systems presented in Table 1
are the most cited systems in the Scopus database, and they are well
known worldwide [16,17].
Energy, water and material are the most common categories ana­
lysed by rating systems, followed by site and indoor and outdoor envi­
ronmental qualities. Energy is the category that has the highest
weighting in most GBRS worldwide, accounting for 25%–30% of the
total credits available [18–21]. LEED is one of the most energy-oriented
systems, focused on the reduction of energy demand during the opera­
tional stage by applying renewable energy sources and reducing cooling
and heating loads [18]. Based on the main pillars of sustainability, rating
1
High environmental quality.
2
German Sustainable Building Council.
2
Journal of Building Engineering 38 (2021) 102180
systems mainly look at the environmental impacts [22], with minimum
emphasis on analysing economic, social and institutional issues. LEED is
more critical when evaluating the social pillar of sustainability, while in
CASBEE the allocation of credits is more balanced among environment,
society and economy assessments [22].
Following the demand from the construction industry for trans­
parency, Green Building Rating Systems (GBRSs) have been incorpo­
rating Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) into their credits system. By
introducing LCA as one of the criteria, rating systems increase the credits
given to simulation of buildings performance, basing the assessment on
empirical calculation methods. This practice tends to increase in GBRSs
because of the market and governmental drive for improved awareness
of the ecological impacts of the construction industry [23]. A consistent
framework gathering the potential of both GBRS and LCA should reduce
their limitations and increase designers’ awareness of the impact of
buildings [24].
Previous studies found limitations in the ability of GBRS’s to address
LCA and raised the concern about existing assessment methodologies:
• Schlegl, Gantner, Traunspurger, Albrecht, and Leistner [25] recom­
mended improvements in DGNB and developed a template to stan­
dardise the structure, collection and evaluation of LCA results in
certification systems focused on the German context. One of the
limitations found during the data collection was the variety of LCA
results presentation formats provided by the different software tools,
demonstrating the need for a more standardised interface that fa­
cilitates the comparison of results and the development of
benchmarks.
• Lessard, Anand, Blanchet, Frenette, and Amor [26] found contra­
dictions in the LCA impacts and the credits given by LEED for the
same building material. For instance, none of the simulated scenarios
that awarded credits in LEED significantly reduced the environ­
mental impacts. A similar evaluation was performed by Collinge
et al. [27]. The authors found inconsistencies when evaluating
GBRS-related materials through LCA. The materials certified by
GBRSs did not perform better than the corresponded conventional
materials.
• Ismaeel [24] introduced certainty indexes to non-LCA based GBRS
credits, i.e. credits that do not provide a strong base to quantify the
environmental impacts, such as design guidelines or site selection.
The goal is to discuss the scientific base behind GBRS credits by
analysing the impact categories of GBRS in an LCA perspective. The
study found discrepancies on the environmental impact weighting in
GBRS.
• Lee, Tae, Gong, and Roh [28] proposed a method to implement an
LCA framework in a Korean GBRS, predicting the contribution of
different building materials in relation to the building components
and the whole building. The framework allows designers to quickly
iterate the decisions on construction materials to achieve the target
certification score.
Although many studies attempt to analyse the relationship among
Environmental Impact Assessment tools, some are focused in a specific
GBRS, not examining it in a broader context. No study was found that
has analysed the relationship between LCA and GBRS from a software
tool perspective. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to develop a sche­
matic EIA framework within the design life cycle, proposing future
research directions to support its development. Three parallel ap­
proaches were used. The first one, detailed in section 2, compares LCA
and GBRS assessment methodologies, based on the literature review. In
section 3, LCA parameters within the GBRS mentioned in Table 1 were
analysed, based on their respective user guides. In section 4, the authors
investigated LCA software tools focused on buildings that comply with
GBRS requirements, evaluating their functionalities according to the
parameters described in ISO 14040 [8]. In section 5 the schematic EIA
framework is discussed. Finally, the last section of this manuscript
T. Sartori et al. Journal of Building Engineering 38 (2021) 102180

Fig. 1. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) stages of buildings.

Table 1
Most cited GBRS.
LEED BREEAM Green Star HQE - CASBEE DGNB

Country International International Australia International Japan International

Certification US Green Building Building Research Green Building Cerway - France Institute for Building Environment and German Sustainable
body Council Establishment group Council of Australia Energy Conservation (IBEC) Building Council
First version 1998 1990 2002 1997 2004 2008
Latest update 2019 2016 2017 2016 2014 2018
Flexibility 167 countries 83 countries 1 country 16 countries 1 country 20 countries
Number of 408 189 40 65 72 44
citations a
a
Citations in Elsevier’s Scopus database. The search methodology is based on Bernardi et al. [16].

indicates future research directions to support the development of the
proposed framework.
This study limits the scope to the GBRS described in Table 1, more
specifically on the international version for new non-residential build­
ings. The LCA software tools analysed are recommended by GBRS or
complies with GBRS requirements. This study focused on analysing the
software tools only from an LCA viewpoint, not from GBRS perspective.
2. Comparison of LCA and GBRS methodologies
GBRS assessment considers quantitative and qualitative measures.
Qualitative criterion points are granted whether a particular environ­
mental issue is applied or not [18], which makes this type of credits
simpler to assess. However. He et al. [18] pointed out that qualitative
credits can be used as checklists by practitioners, limiting building
design by indicating commonly used green techniques. Besides, it is
more complicated to determine the actual building performance only by
choosing and applying different strategies. Criteria-based systems such
as GBRS are more flexible in terms of which category a building is more
likely to obtain credits. In other words, if a building does not perform so
well in one category, it can be compensated for by higher performance
against a different criterion. However, the concentration of credits in
only one category may become an issue if a project achieves a specific
certification level without any credits in another critical category such
as indoor environment quality [29].
Criteria based on quantitative data rely on the building’s perfor­
mance assessment supported by scientific techniques and can be more
complicated to implement because it depends on specific calculation
methods and simulations. Nevertheless, increasing quantitative mea­
sures in GBRS, such as adding LCA as one of the criteria, can increase the
scientific value behind the credits [27], while motivating innovation in
the design [18]. Full LCA evaluates the impacts through the entire
building life cycle, providing numerical evidence when comparing
design choices [20]. Sensitivity analysis through comparing different
materials supports designers in making decisions since the results of LCA
itself do not guarantee optimization of the sustainability of products and
processes [10].
Although the publication of BS EN 15978 represented progress to­
ward LCA of buildings [12], it is still difficult to compare the results of
different assessments. The reasons include the geographical location of
the building, which defines the weather, materials production chains,
regional electricity mix, local regulations, in addition to technological,
cultural and social differences [10,30,31]. The significant variability of
results found in many LCA studies [13,32] indicates that there is still
significant opportunity for a more transparent and systematic assess­
ment. Another challenge inherent in construction-related LCAs is the
uncertainty of the results, considering that buildings have a long-term
life cycle. The predictions and assumptions that need to be made con­
cerning operational energy use, maintenance, remodelling and occu­
pants’ indoor comfort may change over time [33].
Another difference relies on the way the outputs are informed. While
rating systems emphasise the improvements and advantages of the
design decisions, LCA outputs are focused on the environmental dam­
age, such as natural resource depletion. This difference makes rating
systems more appealing to the construction industry through explicit
identification of choices and they allow green certification to be used as
a marketing strategy.
Despite the many differences in the methodological approach
described above, one similarity between LCA and GBRS is the effect of
human judgment when setting up the importance of each impact cate­
gory. In rating systems, this decision is based on the category weighting,
while in LCA, this decision is made during the interpretation process.
This human factor gives both assessments types a level of subjectivity,
not based on scientific facts, but on the developer or practitioner’s value
judgments [14].
Although both EIA tools evaluate a building’s environmental impact

3
T. Sartori et al.
systematically and holistically, LCA focuses on a global or regional
spectrum, and the pros and cons of a new building in a community and
neighbourhood context are often ignored [10]. Specific local ecology
and infrastructure impacts, such as the influence of the building on the
micro-climate, wind and solar access, as well as the ability to modify the
surrounding transportation system, are not addressed with an LCA
approach [2]. Also, multi-criteria systems such as GBRS can inform a
more extensive set of LCA impact categories [27].
3. LCA within GBRS
Apart from the well-known check-lists practices, LCA compels GBRS
practitioners to search for more authentic sustainable solutions, stimu­
lating the search for innovations in the design. Still, a robust and sys­
tematic LCA approach becomes a challenge when applied in a user-
friendly framework such as criteria-based systems. The shift from
descriptive to performance-based design is necessary to unlock the
barrier that prevents designers from implementing green technologies
and assessment mechanisms [34]. Table 2 shows the LCA requirements
for the GBRSs established in Table 1. There are many types of certifi­
cations available, such as housing, interior design and in-use. This study,
however, focuses on the certification of new construction
non-residential buildings, since that is the type of certification that en­
compasses a more diverse range of building usages. Also, the interna­
tional version of each system was chosen, when available.
3.1. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
LEED’s first version was launched in 1998 in the United States by the
US Green Building Council (USGB), a non-profit building industry or­
ganization [40]. It is the most flexible rating scheme, available in 167
countries, becoming the most well-known certification system in the
market.The latest update of LEED for new building design and con­
struction, launched in November 2013, gives up to 5 points for reducing
the building’s life cycle impacts, which represents 4.5% of all credits
available [41]. It is possible to get these credits by renovating part of the
building, reusing some materials or performing an LCA of the structure
and enclosure of the building. For the latter option, the assessment
compares the final solution with a baseline building similar to the pro­
posed design, demonstrating a minimum 10% reduction on the impact
categories [42]. The baseline design is self-declared in LEED and “must
be of comparable size, function, orientation, and operating energy per­
formance” [41]; p. 496). LEED’s reference guide establishes some of the
scope elements, such as a 60 year service life and a cradle to grave
system boundary. It also indicates the appropriate impact assessment
methods for North American projects and global characterisation
models that should be used in other parts of the word [41].
3.2. Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method
(BREEAM)
BREEAM was the first commercialized GBRS. Its first version was
launched in 1990 in the United Kingdom and was applicable for only
new office buildings [43]. To date, it is applied in over 76 countries [43],
but most of the certified projects are from the Europe. In the latest in­
ternational version of BREEAM for new non-residential fully fitted
buildings, there are up to 6 points when performing a whole-building
LCA, which represents 5.9% of all credits available. BREEAM recog­
nises that LCA is a methodology that still needs to mature. Therefore, the
credits available focus mostly on the robustness of the software tool,
method, data and scope of the assessment, aiming to create benchmarks
by collecting much building performance information [44]. The credits
for performing an LCA are based on the assessment method and data
quality, as well as on the scope of building elements included in the
analyses [44].
4
Journal of Building Engineering 38 (2021) 102180
3.3. Green Star (GS)
Green Star (GS) is an Australian rating system, first launched in 2002
by the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA). Green Star follows
the same comparison methodology as LEED, i.e. the assessment results
can be compared with a building with similar construction and usage. It
can also be compared to a hypothetical building representing standard
construction practices or an actual building constructed in the last five
years, similar to the proposed building [45]. It is unclear what part of the
building the practitioner should consider for LCA evaluation, and the
system is flexible on the system boundary, which may lead to incon­
sistent results. However, Green Star establishes that the performance
should be peer-reviewed and carried out by a verified experienced LCA
practitioner. There are up to 7 points available for LCA that represents
6.4% of all credits available. The credits earned depend on the cumu­
lative percentage impact reduction of 7 mandatory impact categories
[45]. However, more points are available for increased life cycle impact.
3.4. Haute Qualité Environnementale (HQE)
HQE launched the first version in France in 1997 [46]. Although
HQE has many certification partners in other countries, such as Brazil,
Lebanon and Canada, it is mostly applied in France. From the rating
systems analysed in this report, HQE is the only one that does not clearly
implement LCA [24]. Although the practical guide for non-residential
buildings under construction considers LCA as one of the methods to
limit the environmental impact of the building, it does not specify the
necessary technical criteria, such as the impact categories and the sys­
tem boundaries [47]. The assessment is made to create awareness of the
environmental impacts caused by the chosen construction materials, and
not to demonstrate a real reduction on the impacts. This lack of precise
requirements may lead to misunderstandings and confusion, discour­
aging practitioners from including this assessment as one of the certifi­
cation criteria.
3.5. Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency
(CASBEE)
CASBEE was developed by the Japan Sustainable Building Con­
sortium (JSBC). Since it started in 2004, over 500 projects have been
certified, among commercial new and existing buildings, detached
houses and real estate [48]. The only LCA impact category analysed by
CASBEE is greenhouse gas emissions (Life Cycle CO2 – LCCO2). There are
two ways of conducting an LCCO2. The first one is through a standard
calculation using reference values of a level-3 performance building, and
the other way to use individual calculations with a highly accurate
LCCO2 estimate [49]. In the first method, the CO2 emissions results are
carried out automatically as the carbon-related criteria are filled out in a
spreadsheet developed by CASBEE. In other words, the life cycle
approach is not a criterion option because the carbon emissions levels
are calculated along with the certification process. The cradle to grave
approach estimates the embodied carbon of the most important struc­
tural materials and uses CO2 emission coefficients to estimate the pri­
mary energy consumed during operation. The categories associated with
LCCO2 are within Q2 – Quality of service, LR1 – Energy and LR2 – Re­
sources & materials, whose sum of points represents 31.6% of all cer­
tification credits. According to Lee et al. [28], CASBEE methodology is
not able to investigate the benefits of green materials usage, due to its
limited database that only brings significant construction materials,
such as concrete, steel and wood.
T. Sartori et al. Journal of Building Engineering 38 (2021) 102180

Table 2
Life Cycle Assessment requirements based on Green Building Rating System.
LEED v4.1 BC + D BREEAM International New Green Star - HQE - Non- CASBEE for DGNB - New
New construction Constructions 2016 - Non-residential Design & As residential buildings (new construction buildings
fully fitted Built v1.2 building under construction) - commercial building
construction

Weight 4.5% 5.9% 6.40% 3,1% 31.60% 9.50%

Part of the building Structure and - Mandatory: Envelope, structure, - - Structure or Structure - Structure -
assessed enclosure finishes, upper floors, internal walls, finishing construction works.
- Extra credits: Foundations, internal - Structure and - Structure - services
finishes, building services and finishing
landscaping.
Characterization TRACI, CML and - IPCC, WMO, - _ CML
modela ReCiPe CML
Building service life at least 60 years 60 60 (suggested) - 60 50
cycle (years)
Method Reporting or Reporting Comparison Comparison Comparison Reporting or rating
comparison
Recognised ATHENA Impact ByggLCA, Conpact, OneClickLCA, _ ELODIE, Team Internally _
Software tool Estimator, Envest 2, eTool, Green Guide, COCON, ELODIE, Building developed
LCA Design SimaPro, MRPI Freetool MPG, nova EQUER, SBS spreadsheet
GaBi Building Sustainability, Anavitor/
ECO2.
System boundary Cradle - grave Flexible Flexible - Cradle - grave Cradle - grave
Functional unitb ft2 - m2 GFA - Kg CO2/yr.m2 M2 SA*a
Credits for EPDs 1 1 Up to 3 Up to 7 - -
a
TRACI [35]; CML [36]; ReCiPe [37]; IPCC [38], WMO [39].
b
Gross floor area (GFA); surface area multiplied by the reference year considered (m2 SA*a).

3.6. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB)3
DGNB is the most recent among all rating systems analysed, founded
in 2008 by the German Sustainable Building Council. From all rating
systems analysed, DGNB has the most detailed description and specifi­
cations for the Life Cycle Assessment category, representing 9.5% of all
credits available. One of the reasons is that the rating system focuses on
a holistic approach, emphasising the building’s performance through
LCA [50]. The certification system provides reference values for most of
the impact categories, based on a top-down statistical study conducted
in 2017 gathering data from approximately 200 buildings [25,51]. It
also establishes a limit and target factors applied to the reference values.
These reference values are self-proclaimed based on different types of
buildings that have been previously certified. Although it is a good
starting point to create benchmarks, it does not represent the full
spectrum of construction industry practice, because it only considers
buildings that were certified [25]. Points are awarded if the LCA results
comply with the reference values, but higher points are earned if the
impacts reach or fall below the target values. Additional points are
awarded for buildings that focus on carbon-neutrality in operation and
construction, according to the agenda 2030 [52]. This requirement is
likely to gradually become part of the certification in future versions
[53].
4. LCA software tools for GBRS
To deliver reliable and consistent results, the choice of software tools
becomes an essential aspect of LCA assessment. Table 3 shows the
characteristics of 5 building-specific LCA software tools. They were
chosen based on the GBRS recognised software tools, detailed in Table 2,
as well as on the ability of these programs to comply with rating systems,
based on the developer’s manuals and recommendations. Studies have
shown inconsistencies in the results when comparing a building’s LCA
with a full LCA software tool [54]. When analysing LCA software tools
by comparing the assessment results, it is crucial to consider the LCA
inputs and algorithms adopted by each software tool. The lack of
knowledge of these parameters might lead the user to search for
3
German Sustainable Building Council.
software tools that deliver better environmental results, especially when
going through the certification process. If the software tool selection
criteria are based on the desired outputs, how reliable is the assessment?
[55].
Although the building’s LCA software tools investigated were rec­
ommended by rating systems, this report focused on analysing the
software tools only from an LCA perspective. To check if the software
tool complies with the certification conditions, each GBRS needs to be
assessed separately, since there is not a common standard followed by
all of them.
EtoolLCD was founded in 2010 by an Australian consultant team, but
it has been expanding to other countries. OneClick LCA has a similar
user interface compared to EtoolLCD. The main idea of the software
developers is to make LCA easy for designers, especially when
comparing different design alternatives [56]. Athena impact estimator is
an open-source tool, developed by The Athena Sustainable Materials
Institute, a non-profit research collaborative located in the United States
[57]. Tally, developed by Kieran Timberlake and PE International [58],
is a plugin into Revit, a BIM 3D modelling software. Computer-Aided
Architectural Life-cycle Assessment (CAALA) is also a plugin, develop
by Bauhaus University Weimar [59]. It uses Sketchup or Rhino to sup­
port 3D modelling. It was developed mostly for residential buildings, but
its usage can be extended to commercial buildings as well.
Since the software tools analysed target building designers and
consultants, this study considers how well these tools comply with the
current construction process needs and designer practices, while
following the technical requirements of LCA methodology. Therefore,
the analysed categories were divided according to the four stages of LCA:
goal and scope, inventory analysis, impact assessment and
interpretation.
4.1. Goal and scope
The first phase of an LCA is the definition of goal and scope. The
former establishes the reasons why the study is being carried out and to
what kind of audience the results will be communicated. The scope
defines, among other elements, the functional unit, the system boundary
and the lifespan of the building. Table 4 demonstrates the software tools
considering the requisites of the first phase of LCA.
Life cycle definition: Although all software tools indicate all stages of

5
T. Sartori et al. Journal of Building Engineering 38 (2021) 102180

Table 3
LCA software tools focused on buildings.
eToolLCD OneClick LCA (student Athena impact estimator Tally Caala
license)

Developer eTool Bionova Ltd ASMI - Athena Sustainable KT Innovations Caala Ltd
Materials Institute
Country Australia Finland United States United States Germany
Last updated - - May 2019 (version 5.4) sep 2018 -
version
Web source etoolglobal.com www.oneclicklca.com www.athenasmi.org choosetally.com caala.de
Platform Web-based Web-based Stand-alone software Plug-in + web-based Plug-in + web-
based
Types of licenses Open use, researcher, consultant, Starter, business, expert, Open source Commercial or Essential, Pro or
enterprise or specialist other tools. Educational Expert

Table 4
Analysis of software tools based on LCA criteria – Goal and scope.
eToolLCD OneClick LCA (student license) Athena impact Tally CAALA
estimator

Life cycle Cradle – cradle, Cradle - cradle Cradle - cradle Cradle - cradle Cradle - cradle
definition
Operational Included Included excluded excluded calculated or included
energy use
Material- no no yes yes no
focused
Building type Commercial and residential Commercial, Industrial, Commercial, Not specific Commercial and residential
Institutional, Residential, Historic Industrial,
or protected monuments. Institutional,
Residential
Parts of Substructure, superstructure, Foundation and substructure, Foundation, walls, Parts of Envelope, internal wall, floors, ceilings,
building internal finishes, Fitting structure and enclosure, finishing columns and beams, building that columns, balcony, windows, skylights,
considered and other materials, external roofs, floors were modelled shadings, volumes around the building
areas, services that makes a shadow
Functional Dwelling, Bedroom, Occupant, m2 Absolute value, per unit area Absolute value, per Absolute value, per area
units usable floor area, m2 fully unit area, project per area
enclosed floor area, m2 gross floor baseline
area
Special focus None Certification purpose Buildings with Revit Autodesk German standards, permits and
limited height. users certifications

a building’s life cycle, eToolLCD is the only one that distinguishes all
stages of the building’s life cycle according to EN 15978 [12]. This
feature provides the user with a clear overview of which life cycle stage
needs improvements. In addition, eToolLCD supports the impacts that
originate from appliance energy consumption, which are non-building
related impacts and is considered optional according to the standard
[12].
Operational energy use: EToolLCD and OneClick LCA do not calcu­
late the operational energy use, however, they allow the user to input
this information, as well as the electricity and fuel grid. CAALA is the
only software analysed that estimates the final and primary operational
energy requirements according to DIN V185994, but this option is only
available for apartment buildings or single-family houses. Because it
calculates operational energy, there are many other variables considered
in the assessment, such as the thermal properties of materials, thermal
bridges, surcharges and airtightness, climatic zone, as well as shading
devices and on-site shading obstacles.
Material-focused: The primary input information in all software tools
analysed is related to the type and quantities of each construction ma­
terial. However, for Athena and Tally, these are the only input infor­
mation required to perform the assessment. For all other programs, the
user can add services, transportation, and equipment.
4
DIN V 18599 is a German standard for energy efficiency of the buildings. It
calculates the net, final and primary energy demand for heating, cooling,
ventilation, domestic hot water and lighting.
4.2. Inventory
Also known as life cycle inventory (LCI), this phase requires the
collection of relevant data needed to quantify the inputs and outputs of
the product system throughout its life cycle [60]. The choice of database
has significant relevance in any LCA study because the inputs and out­
puts of the system are based on the characteristics of the manufacturing
process. It needs to be transparent, so users can verify if the assumptions
of the database fit that specific LCA study, providing replicable and
verifiable results [61]. Table 5 demonstrates the software tools consid­
ering the requisites of an LCI according to EN ISO 14040 [8].
Character of data input: Qualitative data input means that the user
chooses an option from a given list or checklist, i.e. the modules and
indicators to be considered, the building substructure type, as well as
pre-established scenarios for construction and end-of-life. It facilitates
the data inputs, especially in the early stages of design, when exactly
information is not yet available. Fig. 2 shows an example of OneClick
LCA qualitative input when choosing the material concrete. A colour
code is provided, graphically represented as a CO2 cloud, indicating the
relative emissions of a particular material inside the material group so
that the user can choose the greener one. This feature is not available in
the student license. One of the downsides of qualitative inputs is the
“black box” approach that does not allow the user to modify or access
the parameters considered. Quantitative data input is when the inputs
are based on numbers, such as materials quantities and units, building
area, calculation period and transport distance, giving the user more
control of the assessment’s variables.
Input format: Main data can be inputted in a table format, or through

6
T. Sartori et al. Journal of Building Engineering 38 (2021) 102180

Table 5
Analysis of software tools based on LCA criteria – Inventory analysis.
eToolLCD OneClick LCA (student license) Athena impact Tally CAALA
estimator

Character of data Quantitative and qualitative Quantitative and qualitative Quantitative and Quantitative and Quantitative and qualitative
input qualitative qualitative
Input format Tabular Tabular and geometric based Tabular Geometric based Geometric based
Necessary inputs PROJECT: location, LC PROJECT: location, area, type, - Information specific - 3D model in - Construction comparison:
modules, indicators, site certification pursued. about the building Revit component, boundary,
attributes. DESIGN: Stage of the construction - Building Operating - Choose study period
STRUCTURE: Structure process, project type, frame type, Energy Consumption materials in - Preliminary and blueprint
information, construction included parts, default parameters. - Assemblies, their the database planning: object data,
scope, energy and water scope. Building materials, energy consumption, characteristics, and building construction,
DESIGN: templates or water consumption, construction site measurements. technical building
elements for each category, operations, building area, calculation - Add extra materials. equipment
EPDs, design details, function, period.
recommendations
Flexibility of Flexible Partly flexible Inflexible Inflexible Inflexible
default settings
Level of File exchange or standalone Run-time interoperable, file exchange or Standalone Run-time Run-time interoperable
information standalone. interoperable
exchange with
the design model
LCI Databases Australasian LCI, BRE IMPACT Ecoinvent, EPDs and LCIA ATHENA’s database GaBi 8.5 ÖKOBAUDAT Database
EN 15804
Data location Australia European, North American, Middle The United States and United States Germany
Eastern, Asia Pacific and South American Canada

that have some level of communication with the computer-aided design

(CAD) model. Run-time interoperability is available when the EIA
software tool uses a plugins to exchange data, and file exchange methods
are the ability of software tools to export and import relevant file
formats.
LCI Databases: LCA databases are geographical location dependent.
For instance, OneClick LCA provides a broader range of databases and
geographical locations, but these databases are not available in the
student license.

Fig. 2. Example of qualitative input data in OneClick LCA, graphically repre­

sented as CO2 clouds. 4.3. Impact assessment

Also known as life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), this stage allo­
a geometric-based computer model. Geometric based input is performed
cates LCI outcomes to impact categories and category indicators. The
via plugins when software tools use the 3D model software platform to
type of impact categories and the impact indicators for each category
extract information about the building’s materials and quantities.
depend on the LCIA calculation method, also known as characterisation
OneClick LCA and Tally use the Revit 3D model platform, while CAALA
model. Table 6 shows the analyses of the software tools in an LCIA
developed plugins for both Sketchup and Rhino. EToolLCD and Athena
perspective.
do not support a 3D model, even though the former attempted to
Characterisation model: The software tools analysed do not clarify
develop a Revit plugin. In Athena, all data are manually entered, and the
what characterisation model they have applied, because most of the data
material volumes are calculated by the program based on assumptions.
come from Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs). Therefore,
Flexibility of default settings: Since all of the software tools analysed
CML5 [36] and TRACI6 [35] are characterisation models extracted from
are intended to be used by building’s designers or consultants, the use of
the requirements of EPD’s databases used by the software tools
default settings makes the assessment quicker and easier, by providing
analysed.
pre-established templates for common construction practices. Among
Impact category: EtoolLCD is the only software tool analysed that
the software tools analysed, EtoolLCD provides the most flexibility,
contemplates all impact categories cited in EN ISO 15978 [12].
giving the user the autonomy to edit many parameters, such as material
Impact categories beyond EN ISO 15978: All tools analysed consider
characteristics, waste factor, material life cycle, disposal method,
impact categories beyond the ones mentioned in EN ISO 15978 [12].
transport distance, etc. This feature allows the users to build their own
Impacts related to “human health deterioration due to emissions of
set of templates, based on the company history and location dependent
particulates from fossil fuel combustion” were only contemplated by
construction processes.
Athena.
Level of information exchange with the design model: There are
many levels of association between the design and a building perfor­
mance simulation tool [62]. The most comprehensive method is when 4.4. Interpretation
the assessment is fully integrated with the design, so the numerical
calculations are carried out as the project progresses. None of the soft­ Life cycle interpretation, although it is often denoted as the last
ware tools analysed is fully integrated with the design. On the opposite
edge are the standalone software tools, whose data are manually entered
5
with no association with the design, such as Athena. In this case, the Centrum voor Milieukunde – Universiteit Leiden (Douche language). Centre
simulations are performed separately and need to be continuously of Environmental Science – Leiden University (English translation).
6
Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environ­
updated as the project develops. In between these extremes are the tools
mental Impacts.

7
T. Sartori et al. Journal of Building Engineering 38 (2021) 102180

Table 6
Analysis of software tools based on LCA criteria – Impact assessment.
eToolLCD OneClick LCA Athena impact estimator Tally CAALA
(student
license)

Characterization CML CML and TRACI TRACI CML

model TRACI
a
Impact categories GWP, ODP, AP, EP, POCP, ADP_elements, GWP, ODP, GWP, ODP, AP, EP, POCP, ADP_ GWP, ODP, AP, EP, POCP GWP, ODP, AP, EP,
ADP_ fossil fuels, resource use, waste AP, EP, POCP fossil fuels POCP
categories and output flows, leaving the
system impacts.
Impact categories PERT b, total use of non-renewable Total primary Total use of non-renewable primary PERT b, total use of non- PERT b, total use of
beyond EN15978 primary energy resources energy energy resources, total primary renewable primary energy non-renewable
energy, human health particulate resources, total primary primary energy
from mobile sources energy resources
a
Global warming potential (GWP), Depletion potential of the stratospheric ozone layer (ODP), Acidification potential of land and water (AP), Eutrophication
potential (EP), Formation potential of tropospheric ozone photochemical oxidants (POCP), Abiotic Resource Depletion Potential for elements (ADP_elements), Abiotic
Resource Depletion Potential of fossil fuels (ADP_ fossil fuels).
b
Total use of renewable primary energy resources (PERT).

phase, should be addressed during the entire assessment, as it confronts
the outcomes of each phase with the goal and scope defined at the
beginning of the assessment. This is preferably the last stage in an
iterative refinement loop applied at each of the key decision making
points in the building design process. Table 7 contemplates the inter­
pretation phase in the software tools analysed.
Validation of the results: All software tools analysed allow the user to
perform a sensitivity analysis, comparing the results after changing any
parameter. Besides the sensitivity analysis, eToolLCD also provides ex­
amples of assessment results from other buildings, such as residential
dwellings or multiple storey office buildings. The validation happens
when the results of the building assessed are contrasted with the outputs
of a building with similar characteristics [63]. OneClick LCA also pro­
vides this function, but not on the student license. For primary energy
demand, primary energy non-renewable (PENRT) and global warming
potential (GWP), CAALA provides reference values based on German
standards.
Presentation of results: Results are presented in tables, certificates,
graphs and reports. For certification purposes, tables and reports are
useful to build the required documentation. Graphical representations
are very efficient in delivering the assessment outputs, especially when
the tool is aimed at designers. Fig. 3 shows examples of graphical
outputs.
Character of data output: As well as the inputs, the outputs can also
be presented qualitatively or quantitatively. Quantitative outputs are
generated based on numerical calculations. They can be presented in a
table format, or in a more visual way, through graphics, charts and di­
agrams. Qualitative outputs are presented in a report format, describing
the purpose of the assessment, methods, data sources and recommen­
dations. It can also show that the results of a specific impact category are
within a scale based on benchmarks or reference values, as per Fig. 3 (a).
Fig. 4 shows an example of a qualitative output from EToolLCD when the
environmental sustainability scale gives a rating level depending on the
percentage of greenhouse gas emissions reduction compared to a
benchmark chosen by the user.
Rating system compliance: All of the software tools analysed comply
with one or more rating systems. For instance, EtoolLCD provides an
extensive set of recommended practices to get credits by demonstrating
impact reduction. OneClick LCA is a tool focused on rating systems due
to features such as add-ons that make the assessment compatible with
the target certification, as well as a workflow manager to assist users
throughout the process.
5. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework
The existing certification schemes that include LCA in their criteria
system still struggle to deliver an effective assessment framework,
especially during the building design process. Considering that both
assessment methodologies aim to evaluate the environmental impact of
the buildings in a holistic and systematic way, LCA should not be an
option in GBRSs. The most appropriate approach is if all certification
criteria can be evaluated from an LCA perspective. However, the mix of
qualitative and quantitative assessment will depend on the design stage.
Some studies proposed methods to follow LCA throughout the design
stages. Cavalliere, Habert, Dell’Osso, and Hollberg [64] used a range of
databases that corresponded with different design stages. The analyses
in the detailed stages were consistent with the earlier analyses. Consis­
tent results were also found in Rezaei, Bulle, and Lesage [65]. The as­
sembly materials database was structured in a tree format, using a
statistical approach to calculate the uncertainties in the early stage of
design.
Referencing Macleamy curve [66], Fig. 5 proposes a schematic
impact assessment framework within the design life cycle.
In an early design environment, when assumptions are made to
overcome the uncertainties of design choices, the assessment may take a
qualitative approach similar to GBRS, with some pre-established design
options. However, as the design progresses and information becomes
more detailed, the assumptions made in the beginning need to adapt to

Table 7
Analysis of software tools based on LCA criteria – Interpretation of LCA results.
eToolLCD OneClick LCA (student license) Athena impact estimator Tally Caala

Validation of the Sensitivity analysis and Sensitivity analysis Sensitivity analysis Sensitivity analysis Sensitivity analysis and
results comparison with benchmark reference values
Presentation of Table, certificate, graphical Table and graphical Table, graphical Table, graphical Table, graphical
results presentation and reports presentation presentation and reports presentation and report presentation and report
Character of data Quantitative and qualitative Quantitative and qualitative Quantitative Quantitative and Quantitative and
output qualitative qualitative
Rating system Green Star, BREEAM BREEAM, LEED, DGNB, Green Green Globes and LEED LEED DGNB, BNB and BNK
compliance Star, among others

8
T. Sartori et al. Journal of Building Engineering 38 (2021) 102180

Fig. 3. Examples of graphical outputs representations. (a) Share of embodied and operational impacts in CAALA; (b) Comparison between design options in
OneClick LCA.

Fig. 4. Environmental sustainability scale in ETool LCD.

the new decisions, taking a more accurate and quantitative approach,
similar to LCA. The detailed assessment performed later in the design
will provide feedback to the pre-established solutions adopted in early
stages so that the qualitative approach can be updated with the lessons
learned in the later stages. This framework can also be adapted to an
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) environment when the design efforts
are concentrated in the early stages. In this case, the more detailed data
in early design decreases the need for assumptions and pre-establish
solutions, encouraging the search for more innovative green designs.
However, there are limitations:
• Building’s LCA methodology is still a long and complex process for
designers and building consultants [67];
• The lack of a robust database to support benchmarks and reference
values may discourage green building councils from establishing LCA
as a pre-requisite for certification. To address this gap, Hollberg,
Lützkendorf, and Habert [68] proposed a mixed top-down and
bottom-up approach to support the development of benchmarks
focused on guiding the design process.
• Life cycle impact categories focus only on the environmental dam­
age, not informing on the impacts on social and economic pillars of
sustainability;
• LCA software tools focused on buildings, such as those analysed in
this manuscript, evaluate the impacts on the environment as a pro­
cess in parallel with the building design, instead of integrated. Since
these software tools are focused on certification systems, LCA can be

9
T. Sartori et al.
Fig. 5. Schematic impact assessment framework within the design process.
considered a topic on a check-list, instead of a process that informs
designers. The integration with 3D modelling through Building In­
formation Modelling (BIM) is a way to reduce this limitation [69,70].
6. Conclusions and future research directions
This article analysed two different whole building Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) tools - Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) and Green
Building Rating Systems (GBRS). Their main characteristics were dis­
cussed, pointing out their disparities and similarities. This article also
discussed some of the rating system requirements for the LCA criterion,
such as building’s life service, functional unit, and embodied emissions
methodology. It also explored some LCA software tools focused on
buildings that are suggested or complied with GBRS. The aim was to
provide a schematic EIA framework within the design life cycle, as well
as to propose future research directions to support its development.
Focusing on the decision-maker perspective, the framework will be
further improved through interviews with the founders of LCA software
tools and users.
In addition to the schematic EIA framework, the contribution of this
work is to bring software tools to the debate of LCA within GBRS. Since
Table 8
Conclusions and future directions.
Conclusions
EIA LCA should not be considered a criterion separate from other categories in
framework GBRS since the goal of both tools is to assess building’s impact holistically and
systematically.
The most appropriate assessment methodology will depend on the design stage.
LCA within In a simplified approach, the assessment should be focused on the building
GBRS materials that contribute the most to the LCA results.
For some rating systems, even when a cradle-to-grave approach is stated, the
operational energy use (B6 stage) is not considered.
From the embodied impact methodology identified by certification systems,
rating is the one that better inform building’s environmental impacts.
Software tool Graphical outputs emphasising the advantages of the green initiatives motivate
the construction industry to apply Environmental Impact Assessment tools.
LCA software tools recommended by rating systems are simple to use, but they
are not transparent on what assumptions and parameters they have used on the
assessment.
LCA software tools focused on buildings evaluate the impacts on the
environment as a process in parallel with the building design, instead of being
integrated.
10
Journal of Building Engineering 38 (2021) 102180
decision-makers rely on software tool simulations, this article discusses
the ability of LCA software tools recommended by GBRS to communi­
cate the results to designers while fulfilling the LCA requirements.
Conclusions and suggestions for future work are discussed in this session
and summarized in Table 8.
6.1. LCA within GBRS
Among the principal methodologies used by regulations and rating
systems to address embodied emissions, the ones mostly used by GBRS
are reporting, comparison and rating [72]. Considering the rating sys­
tems analysed in this study, BREEAM is the only one that calculates and
reports the construction project’s emissions. By reporting the results,
BRE Global intends to collect enough data to create a benchmark robust
enough to be included on the following BREEAM version updates [44].
The comparison methodology compares the emissions of a design
baseline with an environmentally improved proposed design. In this
case, in order to obtain the pursued credits, the green options should be
acknowledged before being applied [72]. DGNB uses the rating meth­
odology when LCA results are confronted with limit, target and refer­
ence values [51]. Among the identified methods to address embodied
Future directions
An integrated LCA methodology that includes impact categories related to social
and economic pillars of sustainability.
Develop an EIA framework focused on the decision-maker’s perspective, by
interviewing LCA software tool founders and users. Moreover, a case study will be
used to validate the framework.
A framework to perform a gravity analysis [71] to statistically identify the most
relevant LCA parameters from each building typology.
Studies that build an understanding of the influence of construction material
choice in operational energy consumption.
Build benchmarks to support construction regulations, policies and certification
systems.
Evaluate which graphical output format is more informative among designers,
and will most likely drive designers to apply sustainable solutions.
Development of a more informative LCA software tool that consistently supports
designers throughout all project’s stages.
Integration with 3D modelling through Building Information Modelling (BIM)
T. Sartori et al.
impact, rating is the most efficient, followed by comparison and
reporting [72]. Therefore, there is a need for benchmark values to
evaluate the environmental performance of buildings throughout their
life cycle, [68,73].
When evaluating a building’s embodied impacts, a practical
approach is to perform a simplified LCA, focusing on the materials and
decisions that most significantly influence the assessment results [67,
74]. This practice, although already recognised in building LCA guide­
lines [60,75], is still not widely defined or used. Therefore, a future
research opportunity is to conduct gravity analyses [71] to statistically
identify the most relevant LCA parameters for each building typology.
The impacts from energy use during the operational stage, known as
the B6 stage [12], must also be acknowledged and balanced with the
embodied impacts. From the rating systems analysed in this manuscript,
only CASBEE and DGNB mandatorily consider LCA. These are also the
rating systems that mandatorily consider the impacts of the energy de­
mand during use, such as appliances, HVAC and lighting. For all the
other rating systems analysed, even when a cradle-grave approach is
stated, they do not necessarily include the energy required for opera­
tional energy use, but only maintenance, material replacement and
refurbishment. In fact, some rating systems give extra credits when
including operational energy, such as Green Star and BREEAM. It is
important to note that the energy efficiency of the building also depends
on the thermal and physical properties of the envelope’s assembly, such
as U-value,7 R-value8 and solar absorptance.9 In other words, the choice
of envelope material is strictly related to the building’s energy efficiency
during operation [76]. An apparently non-environment friendly mate­
rial may provide the building with a high energy operational perfor­
mance, but this analysis can only be made with a systematic LCA
approach.
6.2. Software tools
The software tools analysed in this manuscript are intended to be
used by building designers or consultants. They combine data from
different sources, from LCI databases to LCIA and EPDs. They do not
provide the user with access to the underlying data, modelling as­
sumptions, and calculation procedures, mostly to protect developer in­
tellectual property [61]. This lack of transparency does not give the user
the full LCA experience, since the outputs are automatically generated
after entering simple information, such as geographical position and the
physical characteristics of the building. To keep the results transparent,
Bueno et al. [54] developed an LCA methodology that provides both
numerical and graphical results. Röck, Hollberg, Habert, and Passer [77]
created a colour-coding method to visualize the contribution of building
elements to the total embodied impacts, providing designers with
intuitive guidance. A colour-coding scheme was also developed by
Santos, Aguiar Costa, Silvestre, and Pyl [78] with reduced input re­
quirements, presenting the users with many pre-defined options.
Although there are some efforts to simplify the assessment for de­
signers, LCA is still a time consuming and data intensive methodology
composed of many technical prerequisites. To overcome this paradox,
software tool developers need to consider both perspectives and balance
the requirements without compromising the assessment’s results. It was
observed that in all software tools analysed there is a trade-off between
simplification of input requirements and the transparency of the
assessment outputs [79]. To overcome this issue, software tool de­
velopers make available many assumptions and construction procedure
templates. One of the downsides is that, since the tool performs a “black
box” assessment, it might be challenging to identify what part of the
7
U-value (W/m2.K) is the thermal transmittance of a material or assembly.
8 Performance of Buildings — Calculation Method, 2011, p. 64, 15978: 2011.
R-value (m2.K/W) is the thermal resistance of a material or assembly.
9
Solar absorptance is usually related to the surface color of a certain mate­
rial, indicating the portion of solar radiation that is absorbed.
11
Journal of Building Engineering 38 (2021) 102180
system needs to be changed in order to improve the environment results
[79,80]. Even though the user still needs some level of experience to
interpret LCA results, the use of simplified tools is a good approach in a
pre-design or conceptual context when the materials and processes are
not yet defined in detail. As the project develops, designers must be able
to identify the critical dependencies in order to make the necessary
changes to the previous assumptions [67].
This study also questioned the accuracy of these software tools out­
comes, since benchmarks are still not yet standardised, and there is not
an established methodology that gauges LCA software tool results. For
instance, looking only at the impact category, eToolLCD is the only
software tool that could be applied to all rating systems analysed in this
study, because it considers all impact categories stated in EN ISO 15978.
However, in terms of database, it would only support Green Star,
because of the geographical database location. The question that arises
here is would eToolLCD support other Green Star LCA criteria? Future
research is needed to develop a software tool or framework that supports
designers to perform a whole building’s life cycle EIA throughout the
design process. Factors that need to be examined in future research
projects are set out in Table 8.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Thais Sartori: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original
draft. Robin Drogemuller: Conceptualization, Writing - review &
editing, Supervision. Sara Omrani: Conceptualization, Writing - review
& editing, Supervision. Fiona Lamari: Conceptualization, Writing - re­
view & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] WBCSD, in: SBT4 buildings: a framework for carbon emissions management along
the building and construction value chain, World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, 2018. Retrieved from, https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Cities-a
nd-Mobility/Sustainable-Cities/Science-based-targets/Resources/framework-carbo
n-emissions-management-building-construction-value-chain.
[2] I.E.A.-. IEA, ANNEX 31 - energy related environmental impact of buildings,
Retrieved from Canada, http://www.iisbe.org/annex31/index.html, 2005.
[3] M.S. Geraldi, E. Ghisi, Building-level and stock-level in contrast: a literature review
of the energy performance of buildings during the operational stage, Energy Build.
211 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.109810.
[4] N. Hashempour, R. Taherkhani, M. Mahdikhani, Energy performance optimization
of existing buildings: a literature review, Sustainable Cities and Society 54 (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101967.
[5] A. Azzouz, M. Borchers, J. Moreira, A. Mavrogianni, Life cycle assessment of
energy conservation measures during early stage office building design: a case
study in London, UK, Energy Build. 139 (2017) 547–568, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2016.12.089.
[6] I. Sartori, A.G. Hestnes, Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy
buildings: a review article, Energy Build. 39 (3) (2007) 249–257, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.07.001.
[7] T. Sartori, J.L. Calmon, Analysis of the impacts of retrofit actions on the life cycle
energy consumption of typical neighbourhood dwellings, J. Build. Eng. 21 (2019)
158–172, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.10.009.
[8] B.E. ISO, In Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and
Framework, 2006, p. 32, 14040: 2006.
[9] B. EN, In Sustainability of Construction Works — Environmental Product
Declarations — Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products,
2014, p. 70, 15804:2012+A1:2013.
[10] M. Buyle, J. Braet, A. Audenaert, Life cycle assessment in the construction sector: a
review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 26 (2013) 379–388, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2013.05.001.
[11] CEN, CEN/TC 350 Business Plan, European Committee for Standardization, 2018.
[12] B. EN, In Sustainability of Construction Works — Assessment of Environmental
[13] F. Pomponi, A. Moncaster, Scrutinising embodied carbon in buildings: the next
performance gap made manifest, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81 (2018)
2431–2442, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.049.
T. Sartori et al.
[14] R. Ade, M. Rehm, The unwritten history of green building rating tools: a personal
view from some of the ‘founding fathers’, Build. Res. Inf. 48 (1) (2020) 1–17,
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2019.1627179.
[15] iiSBE, SBTool, Retrieved from, http://www.iisbe.org/sbmethod, 2020.
[16] E. Bernardi, S. Carlucci, C. Cornaro, R.J.S. Bohne, An analysis of the most adopted
rating systems for assessing the environmental impact of buildings 9 (7) (2017)
1226.
[17] Y. Li, X. Chen, X. Wang, Y. Xu, P.-H. Chen, A review of studies on green building
assessment methods by comparative analysis, Energy Build. 146 (2017) 152–159,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.04.076.
[18] Y. He, T. Kvan, M. Liu, B. Li, How green building rating systems affect designing
green, Build. Environ. 133 (2018) 19–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2018.02.007.
[19] I.M.C.S. Illankoon, V.W.Y. Tam, K.N. Le, L. Shen, Key credit criteria among
international green building rating tools, J. Clean. Prod. 164 (2017) 209–220,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.206.
[20] B. Mattoni, C. Guattari, L. Evangelisti, F. Bisegna, P. Gori, F. Asdrubali, Critical
review and methodological approach to evaluate the differences among
international green building rating tools, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (2018)
950–960, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.105.
[21] M. Shan, B.-g. Hwang, Green building rating systems: global reviews of practices
and research efforts, Sustainable Cities and Society 39 (2018) 172–180, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.02.034.
[22] D.T. Doan, A. Ghaffarianhoseini, N. Naismith, T. Zhang, A. Ghaffarianhoseini,
J. Tookey, A critical comparison of green building rating systems, Build. Environ.
123 (2017) 243–260, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.07.007.
[23] A. Forsberg, F. von Malmborg, Tools for environmental assessment of the built
environment, Build. Environ. 39 (2) (2004) 223–228, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2003.09.004.
[24] W.S.E. Ismaeel, Midpoint and endpoint impact categories in Green building rating
systems, J. Clean. Prod. 182 (2018) 783–793, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.01.217.
[25] F. Schlegl, J. Gantner, R. Traunspurger, S. Albrecht, P. Leistner, LCA of buildings in
Germany: proposal for a future benchmark based on existing databases, Energy
Build. 194 (2019) 342–350, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.04.038.
[26] Y. Lessard, C. Anand, P. Blanchet, C. Frenette, B. Amor, LEED v4: where are we
now? Critical assessment through the LCA of an office building using a low impact
energy consumption mix, J. Ind. Ecol. 22 (5) (2018) 1105–1116, https://doi.org/
10.1111/jiec.12647.
[27] W.O. Collinge, C.L. Thiel, N.A. Campion, S.G. Al-Ghamdi, C.L. Woloschin,
K. Soratana, A.E. Landis, M.M. Bilec, Integrating life cycle assessment with green
building and product rating systems: North American perspective, in: Paper
Presented at the International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering and
Construction, ICSDEC 2015, May 10, 2015 - May 13, 2015, Chicago, United states,
2015.
[28] N. Lee, S. Tae, Y. Gong, S. Roh, Integrated building life-cycle assessment model to
support South Korea’s green building certification system (G-SEED), Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 76 (2017) 43–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2017.03.038.
[29] P. Wu, C. Mao, J. Wang, Y. Song, X. Wang, A decade review of the credits obtained
by LEED v2.2 certified green building projects, Build. Environ. 102 (2016)
167–178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.03.026.
[30] H. Islam, M. Jollands, S. Setunge, Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost
implication of residential buildings—a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42
(2015) 129–140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.006.
[31] O. Ortiz-Rodríguez, F. Castells, G. Sonnemann, Life cycle assessment of two
dwellings: one in Spain, a developed country, and one in Colombia, a country
under development, Sci. Total Environ. 408 (12) (2010) 2435–2443, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.02.021.
[32] M.K. Dixit, J.L. Fernández-Solís, S. Lavy, C.H. Culp, Identification of parameters for
embodied energy measurement: a literature review, Energy Build. 42 (8) (2010)
1238–1247, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.02.016.
[33] L.F. Cabeza, L. Rincón, V. Vilariño, G. Pérez, A. Castell, Life cycle assessment (LCA)
and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: a review,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29 (2014) 394–416, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2013.08.037.
[34] X. Xie, Z. Gou, Obstacles of implementing green building in architectural practices,
in: Green Energy and Technology, 2020, pp. 33–47.
[35] J. Bare, D. Young, M. Hopton, Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical
and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) TRACI Version 2.1 - User’s Guide, U.S
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 2012, p. 24.
[36] Leiden University, CML-IA characterisation factors, Retrieved from, https://www.
universiteitleiden.nl/en/research/research-output/science/cml-ia-characterisation
-factors, 2019.
[37] M. Goedkoop, R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, A.D. Schryver, J. Struijs, R.v. Zelm,
ReCiPe 2008, 2013, p. 133.
[38] UNFCCC, UNFCCC – 25 Years of effort and achievement. Key milestones in the
evolution of international climate policy, Retrieved from, https://unfccc.int/
timeline/, 2019.
[39] W.M. Organization, WMO/UNEP scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 1998,
Retrieved from, https://library.wmo.int/?lvl=notice_display&id=15453#.Xh
2YRMgzY2w, 2020.
[40] USGBC, LEED, Retrieved from, https://new.usgbc.org/leed, 2019.
[41] USGBC, LEED Reference Guide for Building Design and Construction, 2013.
[42] USGBC, LEED v4.1 Building design and construction, in: Getting Started Guide for
Beta Participants, 2019, p. 251.
12
Journal of Building Engineering 38 (2021) 102180
[43] BREEAM, What is BREEAM, march 26 2019,Retrieved from, https://www.breeam.
com/, 2019.
[44] BRE, BREEAM international new construction, in: Technical Manual SD233 2.0,
Building Research Establishment Group, 2016, p. 454.
[45] GBCA, Green Star - Design & as Built V. 1.2 Submission Guidelines, Green Building
Council of Australia, 2017.
[46] Cerway, What is HQE?, Retrieved from, https://www.behqe.com/home, 2019.
[47] Cerway, HQE Practical guide environmental performance building under
construction, in: Practical Guide to the Assessment Scheme for the Environmental
Performance of Non-residential Building under Construction, 2014, p. 405. Paris -
France.
[48] I. JSBC, CASBEE certification system, Retrieved from, http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASB
EE/english/certificationE.htm, 2019.
[49] IBEC, JSBC, CASBEE for Building (New Construction), Institute for Building
Environment and Energy Conservation, 2014, p. 257.
[50] DGNB, DGNB certification: a systematic approach to sustainability, Retrieved from,
https://www.dgnb.de/en/council/certification/, 2019.
[51] DGNB, DGNB System: Criteria Set New Construction Building, German Sustainable
Building Council, Stuttgart, Germany, 2018, p. 653.
[52] Architecture2030, The 2030 challenges, Retrieved from, https://architecture2030.
org/2030_challenges/, 2019.
[53] A. Braune, D. Geiselmann, C.L.S. Oehler, Framework for “carbon-neutral buildings
and sites”, in: Preview Version, DGNB, Stuttgart, Germany, 2018, p. 23.
[54] C. Bueno, L.M. Pereira, M.M. Fabricio, Life cycle assessment and environmental-
based choices at the early design stages: an application using building information
modelling, Architect. Eng. Des. Manag. 14 (5) (2018) 332–346, https://doi.org/
10.1080/17452007.2018.1458593.
[55] A. Haapio, P. Viitaniemi, A critical review of building environmental assessment
tools, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 28 (7) (2008) 469–482, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eiar.2008.01.002.
[56] Bionova, One Click LCA - life cycle metrics software, Retrieved from, https://www.
oneclicklca.com/construction/, 2019.
[57] A.S.M. Institute, Our software and data, Retrieved from, http://www.athenasmi.or
g/our-software-data/overview/, 2019.
[58] T. KT Innovations, Autodesk, Meet tally, Retrieved from, https://choosetally.com/,
2019.
[59] Bauhaus University Weimar, CAALA: computer aided architectural life-cycle
assessment, Retrieved from, https://www.uni-weimar.de/en/media/institutes/
neudeli/gruenderstorys/caala/, 2019.
[60] JRC, ILCD Handbook: General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed Guidance,
Office of the European Union, 2010.
[61] G.A. Norris, P. Yost, A transparent, interactive software environment for
communicating life-cycle assessment results: an application to residential windows
5 (4) (2001) 15–28, https://doi.org/10.1162/10881980160084015.
[62] W.Y.V. Tam, K.N. Le, C.N.N. Tran, J.Y. Wang, A review on contemporary
computational programs for Building’s life-cycle energy consumption and
greenhouse-gas emissions assessment: an empirical study in Australia, J. Clean.
Prod. 172 (2016) 4220–4230, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.130.
[63] L. Pérez-Lombard, J. Ortiz, R. González, I.R. Maestre, A review of benchmarking,
rating and labelling concepts within the framework of building energy certification
schemes, Energy Build. 41 (3) (2009) 272–278, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2008.10.004.
[64] C. Cavalliere, G. Habert, G.R. Dell’Osso, A. Hollberg, Continuous BIM-based
assessment of embodied environmental impacts throughout the design process,
J. Clean. Prod. 211 (2019) 941–952, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.11.247.
[65] F. Rezaei, C. Bulle, P. Lesage, Integrating building information modeling and life
cycle assessment in the early and detailed building design stages, Build. Environ.
153 (2019) 158–167, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.01.034.
[66] AIA, Integrated Projetct Delivery: A Guide, The American Institute of Architects,
2007.
[67] E. Meex, A. Hollberg, E. Knapen, L. Hildebrand, G. Verbeeck, Requirements for
applying LCA-based environmental impact assessment tools in the early stages of
building design, Build. Environ. 133 (2018) 228–236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2018.02.016.
[68] A. Hollberg, T. Lützkendorf, G. Habert, Top-down or bottom-up? – how
environmental benchmarks can support the design process, Build. Environ. 153
(2019) 148–157, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.02.026.
[69] J. Crippa, M.F. Araujo Aline, D. Bem, M.L. Ugaya Cássia, S. Scheer, A systematic
review of BIM usage for life cycle impact assessment, Built. Environ. Proj. Asset.
Manag. 10 (4) (2020) 603–618, https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-03-2019-0028.
[70] A. Hollberg, G. Genova, G. Habert, Evaluation of BIM-based LCA results for
building design, Autom. ConStruct. 109 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2019.102972.
[71] B.E. ISO, In Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements
and Guidelines, 2006, p. 56, 14044: 2006.
[72] Bionova, The embodied carbon review, Retrieved from, www.embodiedcarbonr
eview.com, 2018.
[73] T. Häkkinen, Sustainability and Performance Assessment and Benchmarking of
Buildings, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 2012.
[74] J. Basbagill, F. Flager, M. Lepech, M. Fischer, Application of life-cycle assessment
to early stage building design for reduced embodied environmental impacts, Build.
Environ. 60 (C) (2013) 81–92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.11.009.
[75] J.G. Bastian Wittstock, Katrin Lenz, Tom Saunders, Jane Anderson, Claire Carter,
Zsoka Gyetvai, Johannes Kreißig, Anna Braune, Sébastien Lasvaux,
Boris Bosdevigie, Manuel Bazzana, Nicoleta Schiopu, Emmanuel Jayr,
T. Sartori et al.
Sylviane Nibel, Jacques Chevalier, Julien Hans, Pere Fullana-i-Palmer,
Cristina Gazulla, Jo-Anne Mundy, Tim Barrow-Williams, Christer Sjöström6, EeB
guide guidance document, in: Part B: Buildings, 2012.
[76] M. Najjar, K. Figueiredo, A.W.A. Hammad, A. Haddad, Integrated optimization
with building information modeling and life cycle assessment for generating
energy efficient buildings, Appl. Energy 250 (2019) 1366–1382, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.05.101.
[77] M. Röck, A. Hollberg, G. Habert, A. Passer, LCA and BIM: visualization of
environmental potentials in building construction at early design stages, Build.
Environ. 140 (2018) 153–161, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.05.006.
13
Journal of Building Engineering 38 (2021) 102180
[78] R. Santos, A. Aguiar Costa, J.D. Silvestre, L. Pyl, Development of a BIM-based
environmental and economic life cycle assessment tool, J. Clean. Prod. 265 (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121705.
[79] S.G. Al-Ghamdi, M.M. Bilec, Green building rating systems and whole-building life
cycle assessment: comparative study of the existing assessment tools, J. Architect.
Eng. 23 (1) (2017), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000222.
[80] C. Bueno, M.M. Fabricio, Comparative analysis between a complete LCA study and
results from a BIM-LCA plug-in, Autom. ConStruct. 90 (2018) 188–200, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.02.028.