The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2398-4708.htm

Measuring
Measuring embodied CO2 embodied CO2
emission in construction emission

materials in Kosovo apartments

Visar Hoxha 405
Real Estate, College ESLG, Prishtina, Albania
Received 1 February 2019
Revised 10 June 2019
13 July 2019
Abstract 14 August 2019
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to quantify the carbon emissions emitted by two different typical Accepted 17 August 2019
apartment units representative of two different construction periods in Kosovo due to main construction
materials as a consequence of embodied energy.
Design/methodology/approach – The present study uses a three-step (bottom-up) process-based life cycle
analysis of the construction material set for two different apartment units. The current study uses material
analysis. Embodied CO2 is estimated by multiplying material masses with the corresponding ECO2
coefficients (kg CO2/kg). Due to the lack of a comprehensive Kosovo database, data from an international
database are utilized. The results provide practical baseline indicators for the contribution of each material in
terms of mass and embodied CO2.
Findings – Results of quantitative research find that apartment unit representative of the old communist-era
construction produces 50 percent more embodied CO2 emissions than an apartment unit that is representative
of modern construction in Kosovo. The study finds that this difference comes mainly because of the
utilization of larger quantities of steel, concrete, and precast fabricated concrete in the apartment unit that is
representative of the old communist era.
Research limitations/implications – The calculation of embodied CO2 emissions for major construction
materials in typical apartments in Kosovo can help in the development of national databases in the future.
The availability of such databases could help the construction industry in Kosovo to open up to new
sustainable design approaches since such databases and evaluations performed in the national context in
Kosovo could help the builders in selecting, assessing and using environmentally friendly materials during
the design or refurbishment stage of a building.
Originality/value – This paper is the first investigation of the embodied carbon emission in two different
typical apartment building structures in Kosovo.
Keywords Kosovo, Apartments, Construction materials, Embodied carbon emission
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Building energy consumption corresponds to 40 percent of the total energy consumption in
Europe and is responsible for about 45 percent of the CO2 emissions in the atmosphere,
which is accountable for the greenhouse effect (Energy in Figures, 2015).
In the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) it is stated that the buildings
sector’s use of primary energy is very high since buildings are accountable for 40 percent of
global energy use and 33 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) (UNEP, 2009).
This was also supported by Eurostat (2013), where it is stated that residential and service
buildings use about 40 percent of the total final energy use in Europe. The carbon dioxide
emissions caused by the energy consumption of the buildings have great importance when
it comes to achieving the low-carbon development since 30–40 percent of the world energy
consumption and one-fourth GHG come from the building sector (Lin and Liu, 2015). Carbon
dioxide emissions are also responsible for approximately three-quarters of global
greenhouse gases ( JRC, 2018). This indicates that studying and analyzing the CO2
International Journal of Building
emissions in buildings, especially residential buildings, is of essential importance. Pathology and Adaptation
Vol. 38 No. 3, 2020
pp. 405-421
© Emerald Publishing Limited
The author acknowledges the valued contribution of MSc Besar Bexheti Civil Engineer for providing 2398-4708
the technical data for cases A and B and Dr David Collins of NTNU for proofreading the paper. DOI 10.1108/IJBPA-02-2019-0013
IJBPA From the scientific point of view, the life cycle assessment of buildings is attracting
38,3 enormous research interest. Especially, the calculation of embodied CO2 emission of the
building sector is attracting special interest among scientific scholars.
The embodied CO2 emission of building materials is an essential part of life cycle
assessment, which could be used to asses various policies and measures undertaken in
existing or new buildings on a country level. The embodied energy concerns the total energy
406 consumed in the buildings’ life cycle from the extraction of raw materials to their
transportation, manufacturing and on-site installation, including their deconstruction or
decomposition. The embodied energy and embodied CO2 emission are significant indicators
of sustainability and selection of construction materials is key to reducing the negative
environmental impacts of a building. The embodied CO2 emission values vary based on
materials as well as from country to country.
To this end, the embodied energy and embodied CO2 emission databases are incompatible
with one another. According to Dixit et al. (2012), previous studies mostly adhered to
international life cycle standards. The study acknowledges the necessity to build a global
database of embodied CO2 emission indicators for various construction materials, including
necessary local adjustments. There are various methods to calculate the embodied CO2
emission such as process method, input-output analysis, and hybrid method (Dixit, 2015).
Whilst operational energy is more significant over the long term, the embodied energy of
key materials should not be ignored, and is likely to be a bigger proportion of the total
carbon in a low carbon building (Alwan and Jones, 2014).
Many legislative targets focus only on operational energy and exclude the embodied
carbon emission assessment (Alwan and Jones, 2014). However, Mansfield (2011) suggests
that embodied carbon and operational carbon should be considered together when calculating
a building’s carbon footprint. The embodied carbon assessment should not be ignored.
For the purpose of adequate evaluation of embodied CO2 emissions of a building, a good
material breakdown of various building components to their constitutive materials is
required.

2. Theoretical background
Previous relevant publications and LCA studies have frequently weighed the environmental
impact indicators of building materials against each other in terms of embodied carbon
expenditure, focusing on different weighing systems (Kayan, 2017).
The embodied emissions are rising due to increased construction activity, longer
transportation distances, and utilization of energy-intensive construction materials such as
stainless steel and high strength concrete (Langston and Ca, 2008).
The embodied energy and emissions can be reduced in buildings only through selection of
low energy intensive materials, which result in lower embodied energy and carbon footprint of
the building. Therefore, it is fundamental to quantify embodied energy and carbon footprint of
construction materials. The main methods of quantification of embodied energy and carbon
emissions are Input-Output Analysis (Leontief, 1970), process-based life cycle assessment
(Ortiz et al., 2009), material flow analysis (Brunner and Rechberger, 2004), and Leontief
hybrid analysis (Lenzen and Crawford, 2009; Rowley et al., 2009; Suh and Huppes, 2005;
Treloar, 1997). Each of these methods has its own advantages and disadvantages, which shall
be discussed in the theoretical background section separately.

2.1 Input-output analysis

The input-output method is an environmental accounting tool that links the economic
activities to environmental impacts in order to assess the level of the environmental impact
of each product, including construction materials (Kitzes, 2013). According to Kitzes (2013),
the environmentally extended input-output analysis is a tool that extends to various
environmental impacts such as carbon emissions, waste, energy input, land utilization, Measuring
natural resources utilization and so forth. It is the view of the author of the present study embodied CO2
that in order to accurately perform any environmentally extended input–output analysis in emission
Kosovo, the study will need to have access to input–output tables published by Statistical
agencies of respective countries and carbon emissions data from a respective authority that
does that on a country level.
The environmentally extended input-output analysis is considered as a macro-level life 407
cycle assessment covering the life cycle stages of the product from “cradle to gate”. The
advantage of such an assessment method lies in the full upstream supply chain, thereby
making system cut-offs unnecessary and thereby eliminating the system boundary issue
(Wiedmann, 2009). Since the categorization takes place into economic sectors, the
environmentally extended input–output analysis reflects groups of products as opposed to
individual products (Kitzes, 2013). The disadvantage of this analysis method is that in order
to determine the environmental impact of individual products instead of economic sectors,
the input–output analysis must include the bottom-up approach of process analysis.
In addition, the input–output analysis calculates the amount of CO2 emissions only based
on the cost of products or services. The disadvantage of this method is that it can only be
used as an assessment outline. The limitations of this method are the failure to consider
system boundaries, fuel extraction, processing, production process, waste disposal, and
other various factors regarding used materials that should be considered in the construction
process (Lee et al., 2018).
Further limitation of input–output based life cycle assessment is the coarse categorization
of economic sectors. Under this method, all parts of the world are represented in the input-
output table representing the problem of gross aggregation (Chang et al., 2010).
The input-output analysis uses aggregate national economic data available for different
products and services and analyzes them in order to quantify the environmental impact of
products or services. However, the input–output analysis has a drawback, which mainly lies
in the need to link the monetary values with physical units. In addition, the drawback of this
method also lies in the difficulty of its application to an open economy with substantial non-
comparable imports. Finally, the input–output analysis does not adequately account for
project-specific differences necessary to compare the environmental impacts of different
buildings (Hammad et al., 2015).

2.2 Process-based life cycle assessment

The life cycle assessment evaluates the environmental impacts of construction materials
and processes during their life cycle from cradle to grave by measuring the input and output
of flows of energy, emissions, materials and environmental waste (Cabeza et al., 2014).
According to ISO standard ISO14040, the process-based life cycle assessment method is
comprised of the following steps: defining the goal and scope, developing the Life Cycle
Inventory, assessing the impact and interpretation of results. The fundamental approach for
data selection in the building sector is the process-based life cycle assessment method that is
a bottom-up approach, which calculates the environmental input and output along with the
life cycle stages of construction materials. The bottom-up approach ensures a high level of
detail, accuracy and precision (Rønning and Brekke, 2014).
The disadvantage of life cycle assessment is that the accuracy of assessment depends upon
data availability and accessibility (Takano et al., 2014). In addition, the present method faces
difficulties related to data limitation producing incomplete results (Huang et al., 2009). On the
other hand, life cycle assesment depends upon Life Cycle Inventory databases, which contain
data on embodied energy and carbon footprint for selected developed countries, which may not
be entirely applicable to the case study analyzed in another country. The Life Cycle Inventory
databases need significant adjustment to produce precision in data analysis (Ding, 2014).
IJBPA Authors such as Guggemos and Horvath (2006) argue that the process-based life cycle
38,3 assessment analysis is a bottom-up method, which identifies all material and energy flows
linked with the different activities related to the production of construction material or
provision of service related to material production, thereby quantifying the environmental
impact of the construction material. According to these scholars, the process-based life cycle
assessment produces detailed and process-specific results, which can be further used to
408 identify areas for improvement. The downside of the process-based approach is that it is
time-consuming and costly.
Furthermore, to address the difficulties arising from the collection of detailed data on all
the processes involved, the process-based life cycle assessment must define the boundaries
for evaluation of environmental impacts and material and energy flows that are subject to
process-based LCA (Suh et al., 2004).

2.3 Material flow analysis

This section briefly discusses the material flow analysis and its advantages and
disadvantages. The material flow analysis systematically evaluates the flows and stocks of
materials of the system clearly defined in space and time (Brunner and Rechberger, 2004).
The material flow analysis identifies the objective of measurement, defines the system,
identifies the relevant flows, processes, and material stocks, designs the flow chart, executes
the mass balancing, and finally presents the results of calculation (Brunner and Rechberger,
2004; Huang et al., 2012). The advantages of the material flow analysis are that all inputs
and outputs of the system are balanced, effectively and comprehensively providing the
information about the sources, flows and stocks of materials. The disadvantage of this
calculation of embodied carbon footprint is that under this method the collection of data can
be very much time consuming and oftentimes also challenging. The Substance Flow
Analysis software tool is mostly used to measure embodied energy and carbon footprint of
construction materials.
In terms of a method, the material flow analysis is only used for a single species of
materials and used only at the industry level. In addition, the method needs a large amount
of data and it is a static model for total amount accounting. The method needs to build on a
dynamic model and value-flow model for better guidance (Huang et al., 2007).

2.4 Hybrid analysis

The hybrid life cycle assessment method attempts to overcome the flaws of the process
method and input-output analysis by integrating both types of data into one (Omar et al.,
2014). The hybrid life cycle assessment combines the accuracy of process life cycle analysis
with the detailed examination of input–output analysis in order to enhance the results
accuracy. Several hybrid models have been developed by various authors such as input–
output hybrid analysis (Treloar, 1997), integrated hybrid life cycle assessment and tiered
hybrid analysis (Suh and Huppes, 2005) and path exchange method (Lenzen and Crawford,
2009). In this regard, the hybrid life cycle assessment has been used more extensively from
Stephan et al. (2013).
Alternatively, the hybrid analysis combines the top-down approach of the input–output
analysis with the bottom-up approach of process-based life cycle assessment method.
The hybrid method benefits from the strengths of both methods Hammad et al., 2015).
Further, the present section shall address the advantages and disadvantages of each of
these hybrid sub-methods.
The fundamental approach of hybrid input–output analysis is the process of
disaggregation of data (Suh and Huppes, 2005). Under this method, the industry sectors
are disaggregated into an input–output data table. Further, the process data of respective
construction materials are inserted into table input columns to replace the input–output data
(Treloar, 1997). The hybrid life cycle assessment is mostly used to calculate carbon Measuring
emissions from wind power (Wiedmann et al., 2011). embodied CO2
On the other hand, the integrated hybrid life cycle assessment links the input–output emission
table with process data matrix and includes both upstream and downstream (Suh and
Huppes, 2005). The present method interlinks upstream matrix of product flows expressed
in monetary terms and downstream matrix of products expressed in physical units
(Wiedmann et al., 2011). 409
Further, the tiered hybrid model developed by Rowley et al. (2009) applies process data to
downstream processes for use and end of life phases and upstream relevant processes,
covering residual upstream processes with input–output analysis. This model attempts to
address the issue of double-counting by means of calculating incompleteness factors of the
system and using them to delete the lower-order burdens in the input–output inventory.
The final sub-method is the path exchange method, which was developed by Lenzen and
Crawford (2009). The path exchange method executes the structural path analysis by using
an input–output model to assess the environmental impacts resulting from upstream
processes (Treloar, 1997). The path exchange method uses specific process data of the
identified structural paths and does not need to work with large life cycle assessment
databases as suggested by Lenzen and Crawford (2009).
The review of authors’ findings regarding life cycle assessment methods has been
tabulated in Table I.

2.5 Specifics of building construction in Kosovo

Kosovo follows four construction periods: buildings built until 1959 – basically pre Socialist
Yugoslavia period buildings built between 1960 and 1998; buildings built between 1999 and
2001 – emergency post-war period; buildings built after 2002 – end of emergency period and
recent times.
The first construction period covers the period before 1959. The buildings of this
period have solid bricks, double pane windows, wooden board floorings without thermal
insulation and ceilings consisting of plastered cane and wooden boards. Given their wall
thickness, and small window openings, these buildings have solid thermal characteristics
but less lighting comfort. Massive building system was widely used during this period
with baring walls constructed from full brick and different wall thickness in each floor
with larger thickness in lower floors. This construction system is used to construct
buildings from the Ottoman period (considered building heritage) and the early
Communist period (Hoxha et al., 2013).
On the other hand, during the second period, prefabricated panels were introduced in the
construction sector but not widely applied. Clay hollow blocks were the main building
element. Thermal insulation was not applied even though designed. The buildings
constructed during the second period are big energy consumers due to glass/wall ratio,
thermal bridges and un-insulated envelope. In the second period, the skeleton building
system has a reinforced concrete frame which consists of elements such as columns, beams
and slabs. Its importance lies in releasing walls from bearing function. Hence, perimeter
walls are usually 25–30 cm thick and openings or glass mass are unlimited in size. With no
bearing walls, buildings rise to significant height (Hoxha et al., 2013).
In the third period of emergency reconstruction, walls were left un-insulated while
thermal insulation was only installed in the new ceiling because it was less expensive than
constructing a new concrete slab. Finally, in the fourth period after 2003, the new buildings
constructed implement thermal measures in the building envelope meeting different
standards of energy conservation (Hoxha et al., 2013).
In terms of building materials, the buildings in Kosovo used mainly four specific
materials such as stone, hollow and full brick, concrete and steel. Buildings built before the
IJBPA Method Findings Authors
38,3
Input–output Covers the life cycle stages of the product Wiedmann (2009), Kitzes (2013), Lee et al.
analysis from “cradle to gate” (2018), Chang et al. (2010), Hammad et al.
advantage of full upstream supply chain (2015).
Applies to groups of products as opposed to
individual products
410 Must include the bottom-up approach of
process analysis
The method fails to consider system boundaries
The method faces problems with gross aggregation
the input–output analysis does not adequately
account for project-specific differences necessary
to compare the environmental impacts of
different buildings
Process-based Evaluates the environmental impacts of Cabeza et al. (2014), Rønning and
life cycle construction materials and processes during Brekke (2014), Huang et al. (2009),
assessment their life cycle from cradle to grave Ding (2014), Guggemos and Horvath
It is a bottom-up approach that ensures a high (2006), Suh et al. (2004)
level of detail, accuracy and precision
Accuracy of assessment depends upon data
availability and accessibility
The Life Cycle Inventory databases need
significant adjustment to produce precision in
data analysis
Identifies all material and energy flows linked
with the different activities related to production
of construction material
Must define the boundaries for evaluation
of environmental impacts and material and
energy flows
Material flow Evaluates the flows and stocks of materials of the Brunner and Rechberger (2004),
analysis system clearly defined in space and time Huang et al. (2007)
All inputs and outputs of the system are balanced
whereas the collection of data can be very much
time consuming and oftentimes also challenging
Hybrid analysis Combines the accuracy of process life cycle analysis Omar et al. (2014), Hammad et al. (2015)
Table I. with the detailed examination of input-output
Review of authors analysis in order to enhance the results accuracy
findings regarding life Combines the top-down approach of the input–
cycle assessment output analysis with the bottom-up approach of
methods process-based life cycle assessment method

1980s used the full brick as the main building material (1960) and perforated (hollow) brick
during the 1970s without outside insulation whatsoever. During the 1980s due to new
building Yugoslav Code, the composite walls (perforated brick + façade brick) were used.
No thermal insulation was required and no attention was paid to thermal bridges. During
the 1980s the buildings used composite walls with concrete slabs and columns left
un-insulated and uncovered with bricks creating many thermal bridges. Windows installed
during the 1960s and the 1970s are double pane windows with single glass, while during the
1980s double glassed windows with aluminum frame were introduced. PVC Windows were
introduced after 2003 (Hoxha et al., 2013).
It is the view of the present author that the specifics of building construction in Kosovo,
which is divided into four stages, make the Kosovo case quite unique, especially the building
construction that took place during the communism and the one after 2003. The difference in
the construction materials set and in the style of the building make the case of Kosovo quite Measuring
unique and generate the need to compare the embodied carbon assessment between the embodied CO2
buildings of these two periods. emission
3. Methodology
The research method used in this study is a three-step (bottom-up) process analysis
implemented for the construction materials set. First, a detailed material analysis is 411
performed, followed by mass analysis and then by the embodied energy and embodied
carbon emission analysis. A three-step bottom-up process LCA analysis is composed of the
following steps:
(1) Material analysis: the material analysis breaks down the set of materials and
equipment into constitutive elements. First, the construction material set is broken
down into distinct groups of major materials. Second, each group is further
segregated to its constitutive main items. Under the second task, the major items of
the group are identified and split into sub-items until reaching the lowest level of
basic items, which cannot be split into sub-items any further. The present study
divides the construction materials set for Kosovo apartments into the following
groups: load-bearing structure, masonry and coatings, insulation, flooring and
covering, and material integration. The identification of each material under each
group category is based on the final drawings of each case study.
(2) Mass analysis: under this step for each material the mass in kilograms is calculated. The
required data are extracted from the final drawing (plan) of each case study building.
(3) Embodied carbon emission analysis: the mass values obtained in the previous step
are further transformed into embodied carbon emission ECO2 (kgCO2) after
multiplying them by the corresponding ECO2 coefficients (denoted herein by CECO2
and expressed in kgCO2/kg of material). Although the embodied carbon emission
coefficients are parameters that vary from country to country, the values are
extracted from the Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) (Hammond and Jones,
2010). The boundaries defined in the ICE database are cradle-to-gate. The required
quantities of the forms of energy for the various materials contained in the database,
concern energy converted to primary equivalent. Accordingly, ECO2 coefficients
correspond to these primary energy values. According to Dixit (2015), such a
process-based life cycle assessment analysis suffers from various truncation errors.
Numerous efforts have been made to investigate cradle to gate embodied carbon emissions
of the building materials and develop the inventory of embodied energy and carbon
emissions for evaluating the carbon footprint of buildings (Hammond and Jones, 2010). Such
efforts were mainly conducted by Hammond and Jones as part of the Carbon Vision
Buildings Program at the University of Bath, England, which led to the development of a
comprehensive inventory of the embodied carbon of building materials, which has since
been used in several studies. Similarly, the Centre for Building Performance Research in
New Zealand performed a study to develop an inventory for embodied energy and CO2
coefficients for New Zealand Building Material (Mao et al., 2013).
In the absence of Inventory for embodied energy and CO2 coefficients for Kosovo
building materials, the ICE inventory developed by Hammond and Jones (2010) is used
mainly due to the fact that most of the building materials in Kosovo are imported and not
locally manufactured.
The present study uses this methodology to analyze and draw comparisons between two
apartment units with a totally different construction material set used in each of them. The
first unit is part of the building that was built in 1989 in Kosovo and is part of brutalism
IJBPA architecture that was prevalent in Kosovo during communism era, whereby the second
38,3 apartment units is part of the building that was built in 2017 and is part of new construction
in Kosovo. Both apartment units are part of residential buildings that are typical for the
period in which they were built. The apartment unit built-in 1989 is typical for the period of
communism with brutalism architecture and lots of concrete, cement, and steel used in the
frames of the building without any consideration to the thermal envelope of the building.
412 The second apartment is part of the building built in 2017 that is typical for the new
constructions in Kosovo, built with bricks and with much higher considerations given to the
thermal envelope of the building.
The descriptions of the apartment units have been given below.

3.1 Case study units

The apartment units analyzed are two apartment units that differ from one another in the
materials used. The apartment (Case A) is part of Building A, which was constructed in 1989
during the communism era in Kosovo. The composite construction of the exterior walls
consists of two prefabricated concrete sandwich panels and concrete slabs. The roof has a
thin layer of thermal insulation, whereas the ground slab is not insulated. Old wooden
windows have two coupled frames each with single glazing. The surface of Case A is 72 m2.
The Case A apartment building is a representative of the buildings built during the
communist era in the 1980s. On the other hand, Case B is part of the residential building,
which has a reinforced concrete structural frame with thermally insulated envelope and
double glazed PVC windows. Case B apartment is representative of typical constructions
completed after 2010 and has the surface 74 m2. The floor areas of two types of apartments
(Case A and Case B) have been presented in Figure 1.
There are hundreds of types of building construction materials that are used in total
construction works of one apartment building. However, this study classifies the
construction materials into structure materials and finishing materials. The consumed
amount for two types of apartments was quantifying after conducting an interview with the
Chief Engineer of Besa Commerce Construction Company in Prishtina, who provided a
report of amounts of spent materials in the construction of two types of apartments.
12.0
7.0

S-02

20.0 259.1
169.3
20.0

7.0 terrasa
N 12.0 20.0 438.9 20.0
20.0

S = 74 m2 haps.perbashket
425.0

S-02

S-01 S-01
295.0

100.0 158.0 20.0

45° 7.0
Qendrimi
ditor
12.0 20.0 760.0 20.0
kuzhina
90.0
12.0

20.0
20.0

7.0
12.0 20.0 414.0 12.0 144.0 20.0
249.0

ashensori
90.0

dh.fj.
korr.

S-03 S-03
12.0

S-06 S-06
90.0

100.0

dh.fj. hyrje
Figure 1.
330.0

7.0
Floor designs
S-05

12.0 20.0 333.8 12.0 224.2 20.0

of two case study banjo

12.0

S-04 S-04
apartment units
3.0

(GSPublisherVersion
12.0

0.1.100.100) banese
S-05

fqinje
4. Results and discussion Measuring
For each case study, the value and the percentage contribution of the main construction embodied CO2
materials in terms of their mass and ECO2 are presented in Tables II–IV. Table II emission
summarizes the mass intensity for the top construction materials used in the construction
materials set for both case studies. In the case of Study A and Case study B, the basic
construction materials and their mass intensities have been presented in Table II.
413
4.1 Embodied CO2 emissions of major construction materials
Buildings emit CO2 due to the fact that they utilize vast resources and energy during the
whole life cycle. However, the current study focuses only on the embodied CO2 emissions of
major construction materials. The mass values obtained in the previous step were
transformed to ECO2 (kgCO2) after multiplying them by the corresponding ECO2
coefficients (denoted herein by CECO2 and expressed in kgCO2/kg of material). Although it
is well known that these coefficients are nationally dependent parameters, in the absence of
a comprehensive relevant database in Kosovo, available values from the ICE (Hammond
and Jones, 2010) were used. Table III presents the embodied CO2 in kg CO2/kg of each of the
major construction materials used.

4.2 Embodied CO2 emissions analysis results

The embodied CO2 emissions analysis for two selected case studies has been presented in
Table III and elaborated further below. The total CO2 emissions in kg, total CO2 emissions
per m2, and the percentage contribution of the main construction materials in terms of their
embodied CO2 are presented in Table IV.

Case A Case B
No. Material Unit Unit Unit Unit

Structure materials
1. Steel for pillars and flooring 4,000 kg N/A 2,500 kg
2. Floor concrete 47,000 kg 16 m³ 38,400 kg
3 Concrete for pillars and walls 25,000 7 m³ 16,800 kg
4. Precast fabricated concrete 28,500 kg N/A 0 kg
Finishing materials
5. Floor leveling (ibercug ) 6,200 5.18 m³ 4,144 kg
6. Bricks 2 × 20 × 20 2,700 49 m² 5,292 kg
7. Bricks 25 × 20 × 12 0 kg 56 m² 4,928 kg
8. Bricks for façade 25 × 12 × 6 0 kg 35 m² 7,000 kg
9. Rockwool 5 cm 0 kg 35 m² (1.75 m³ ) 140 kg
10. Façade stiropore 8 cm 0 kg 6 m² (0.48 m³) 8.16 kg
11. Stiropore 3 cm 0 kg 18 m² (0.54 m³) 9.18 kg
12. Limestone mortar Refix 10 5,500 kg 256 m² 6,500 kg
13. Layers of stucco (sweeping) 1,450 kg N/A 900 kg
14. Paint finishing 150 kg N/A 100 liters
15. Wood parquet 1,800 kg N/A 0
16. Laminate 1 cm 0 kg 62 m² 620 kg
17. Floor ceramic tiles 260 kg 12 m² 245 kg
18. Wall ceramics 450 20 m² 400 kg Table II.
18. PVC windows 0 10.8 m² 10.8 m² Quantity of major
19. Internal wooden doors 8 units×15 kg ¼ 120 kg N/A 4 units × 15 kg ¼ 60 kg construction materials
20. Wooden windows 3 units×10 kg ¼ 30 kg 0 m² 0 kg used for production of
21. Solid core entrance doors 1 unit × 40 kg N/A 1 unit × 30 kg two case studies
IJBPA Type of material Embodied CO2 in kg CO2/kg
38,3
Steel 1.77
Concrete 40/50 MPa 0.14
Concrete 40/50 (40/50 MPa) for precasting 0.176
Concrete for pillars 0.194
Cement 0.069
414 Bricks 0.53 kg CO2 per brick
For 2.3 kg per brick or 0.23
Rockwool 5 cm 1.05
Façade stiropore (polystyrene) 2.71
Limestone 0.087
Average CEM I Portland Cement, 94% Clinker 0.93
Paint finishing 2.42
Laminate 0.65
Wood parquet 2.94
Ceramic tiles 0.74
Table III. PVC Windows 110 kg CO2/ m2
Embodied CO2 Wood for doors 18.45
coefficients Wood for windows 42.72

The research results as outlined in Table IV show that CO2 emissions in kg CO2/m2 is 471.30
for the residential building apartment built-in 1987 during the communism, which was
representative of brutalism architecture as opposed to 299.69 kg CO2/m2 emitted by the
apartment (Case B) part of residential building built in 2017, which is representative of new
residential construction in Kosovo that has consideration for thermal envelope and insulation.
The difference between two types of construction is in the precast concrete, wooden
windows, wood parquet used in Case A as opposed to bricks, PVC windows, stiropore,
laminate used in case B.
The difference in results between Case A and Case B originates mainly from precast concrete
carbon emission, wooden windows, and wooden parquet in Case A as opposed to Case B.
The results divide the embodied carbon analysis of construction materials set into one of
the structure materials and finishing materials.
In Case A in terms of structure materials, the steel constitutes the largest proportion with
20.90 percent of the total embodied CO2 emission as opposed to Case B in which the floor
concrete constitutes the largest proportion 24.24 percent. Although the steel leads as the
structural material with the highest embodied carbon emission in Case A when compared
with Case B, the same embodied carbon emission is also prevalent in Case B, leading to the
conclusion that although old communist residential buildings used more steel material
intensity in kilograms, when compared to the total embodied carbon emission of the
residential structure, the steel constitutes nearly the same proportion in both cases studies A
and B. This is because the difference is offset by the presence of precast concrete in Case A,
which was the traditional way of construction in the brutalism architecture of buildings
constructed during the communist era in Kosovo. For instance, the precast concrete
constitutes 14.70 percent of the total embodied carbon emissions in Case A.
In terms of finishing materials bricks constitute a larger proportion altogether in Case of
B with 17.86 percent of total embodied carbon emissions as opposed to Case A with only
1.83 percent.
Another huge difference between Case A and Case B in embodied carbon emission arises
from the use of wooden parquet in Case A, which constitutes around 15.5 percent of the total
embodied carbon emission as opposed to the use of laminate in the floors of Case B, which
constitutes 1.82 percent of the total embodied carbon emission of Case B.
 Case A Case B
Total embodied Total embodied Percentage of Total embodied Total embodied Percentage of
CO2 emission in CO2 emission/ embodied CO2 CO2 emission in CO2 emission/ embodied CO2
No. Material Unit kg m2 emission (%) Unit kg m2 emission (%)

Structure materials
1. Steel for pillars
and flooring 4,000 kg 7,080 98.40 20.90 2,500 kg 4,425 59.79 19.95
2. Floor concrete 47,000 kg 6,580 91.40 19.30 38,400 kg 5,376 72.64 24.24
3. Concrete for 16,800 kg
pillars and
walls 25,000 4,850 67.40 14.30 3,260 44.05 14.70
4. Precast 0 kg
fabricated
concrete 28,500 5,016 69.70 14.70 0 0
Total structure
materials 23,526 326.75 69.20 13,061 176.5 58.89
Finishing materials
5. Floor leveling
(ibercug) 6,200 427.80 5.94 1.26 4,144 kg 286 3.86 1.29
6. Bricks
25 × 20 × 20 2,700 621 8.63 1.83 5,292 kg 1,217 16.44 5.49
7. Bricks
25 × 20 × 12 0 kg 0 0 0 4,928 kg 1,133 15.31 5.11
8. Bricks for
façade
25 × 12 × 6 0 kg 0 0 0 7,000 kg 1,610 21.75 7.26
9. Rockwool 5 cm 0 kg 0 0 0 140 kg 147 1.98 0.66
10. Façade
stiropore 8 cm 0 kg 0 0 0 8.16 kg 22 0.29 0.10
11. Stiropore 3 cm 0 kg 0 0 0 9.18 kg 25 0.33 0.11
12. Limestone
mortar Refix 10 5,500 kg 478 6.64 1.40 6,500 kg 565 7.63 2.55

(continued )

emission analysis for

emission
Measuring

Table IV.
embodied CO2

Embodied CO2

selected case studies

415
 38,3

416
IJBPA

Table IV.
Case A Case B
Total embodied Total embodied Percentage of Total embodied Total embodied Percentage of
CO2 emission in CO2 emission/ embodied CO2 CO2 emission in CO2 emission/ embodied CO2
No. Material Unit kg m2 emission (%) Unit kg m2 emission (%)

13. Two layers of

stucco
(sweeping) 1,450 kg 1,348.50 18.73 3.97 900 kg 837 11.31 3.77
14. Paint finishing 150 kg 363 5.04 1.06 100 liters 242 3.27 1.09
15. Wood parquet 1,800 kg 5,292 73.5 15.5 0 0 0 0.00
16. Laminate 1 cm 0 0 0 0 620 kg 403 5.44 1.82
17. Floor ceramic
tiles 260 kg 192 2.66 0.56 245 kg 181 2.44 0.81
18. Wall ceramics 450 150 2.10 0.45 400 kg 134 1.81 0.60
19. PVC windows 00 0 0 0 10.8 m² 1,188 16.05 5.36
20. Internal 8 units ×15 4 units×15
wooden doors kg ¼ 120 kg 2,214 30.75 0.65 kg ¼ 60 kg 1,107 14.95 4.99
21. Wooden 3 units ×10
windows kg ¼ 30 kg 1,281.60 17.80 3.78 0 0 0 0.00
22. Solid core 1 1 unit × 30
entrance doors unit × 40kg 34 0.47 0.1 kg 25 0.33 0.11
Total finishing
materials 10,408.30 144.55 30.80 9,122 123.19 41.11
Total in CO2 kg 33,934.3 Total in kg CO2 22,183
Total in kg CO2/m2 471.30 Total in kg CO2/m2 299.69
Note: Total CO2 emission per material in kg (Unit in kg × embodied CO2 emission in kg/kg)
The final difference comes from the use of PVC windows in Case B constituting 5.36 percent Measuring
of total embodied carbon emission unlike wooden windows constituting 3.78 percent of total embodied CO2
embodied carbon emission of Case A. emission

5. Conclusions
The embodied CO2 emissions corresponding to construction materials of two typical
apartment structures in Kosovo were evaluated. Both apartment types are intentionally
417
located in the same climatic zone of Prishtina, however, they were not built during the same
period and are not representative of the same construction method. Whereas Case A is
representative of brutalism architecture and buildings built during the communism era in
Kosovo, Case B is representative of modern construction in Kosovo, which takes into
consideration the thermal envelope of the building.
In terms of material intensity, the study concludes that steel was heavily used in the
buildings that are representative of brutalism architecture, whereas they are less used in
the modern buildings in Kosovo. The author of this study concludes that buildings that
were built during communism took into consideration the strength of the building that
ought to be resistant to earthquakes and other attacks. This was the mentality of urban
planners of that period, whereby architects and engineers in today’s Kosovo pay more
attention to the thermal characteristics of the buildings since it is required by the Building
Code of Kosovo too.
Also the floor concrete dominates in terms of mass intensity in Case A much more than
in Case B. The author of the present study opines that the brutalism architecture paid lots
of attention to the mechanical strength of the building and of the building structure such
as pillars and floor and used larger mass intensities of concrete that the civil engineers
used in modern construction today in Kosovo. In terms of concrete for pillars and walls,
the Case A uses much larger mass intensities of concrete than Case B. In this regard, for
instance in Hellenic dwellings the concrete dominates around 60 percent, whereas steel is
the dominant material in terms of ECO2 (average 30 percent) due to its high ECO2 content
(CECO2 coefficient) (Syngros et al., 2017). The correlation between the total mass of
structure materials in Case A with the total embodied CO2 emissions in Case A is around
0.21, which corresponds to the correlation between total mass and total embodied CO2
emissions in Hellenic dwellings, which is 0.25 (Syngros et al., 2017). The author of this
study thinks that due to zoning limitations, Kosovo’s old communist buildings are similar
to those of Hellenic dwellings because Greece did not change much into new construction
or did not do much in a refurbishment that takes into consideration energy efficiency and
environmental protection.
The key difference in the construction between these two building eras is that during
communism the precast concrete was used as a part of brutalism architecture to show
strength and less consideration on the thermal comfort of occupants and energy efficiency
of the building. Whereas in Case A the precast concrete is used heavily, in Case B the bricks
are used as a type of construction.
Another difference between the two types of construction is that Case A did not use
any insulation materials, façade, stiropore or Rockwool, whereas Case B pays more
attention to the thermal envelope of the building. In addition, in Case A the wooden
windows are used, and in Case B PVC windows with greater thermal insulation are used.
In addition, in the old apartments of communism, the wooden parquet is used as opposed
to Case B, which uses laminate as engineers are wearier of environmental impacts of
the parquet. Also in Case A more layers of stucco are used as a finishing material than in
Case B, showing the tendency of builders in communism to pay much less attention to the
environmental impact of the building.
IJBPA In terms of embodied CO2 emission, Case A produces 50 percent more embodied carbon
38,3 emission than Case B. Whereas Case A produces 471.30 kg CO2/m2, Case B produces only
299.69 kg CO2/m2. The difference in CO2 emission between two cases originates from the
use of larger mass intensities of steel, concrete, precast concrete, wooden parquet, and
wooden windows in Case A as opposed to Case B, which uses less concrete and more bricks
and other insulation materials. The total embodied carbon emission of Case B is closer to the
418 one of modern residential buildings built in the Czech Republic, which totals in average 230
kg CO2/m2 (Lupíšek et al., 2015). In relation to this, the study in South Korea found that
various construction materials of an apartment unit produced around 569.5 kg CO2/m2 on
average ( Jeong et al., 2012). On the other hand, Roh et al. (2018) analyzed two types of
apartment buildings in South Korea tower-type such as apartment buildings with a flat
plate structure and plate-type buildings with wall structures and found that for plate type
the embodied carbon emission was 418 kg CO2/m2 whereas for flat plate structure the
embodied carbon CO2 emission was 357 kg CO2/m2 . In relation to this, Kim et al. (2013)
analyzed different construction materials set for apartment buildings and found that
CO2 emissions by unit area (m2) were estimated at an average of 410 kg CO2/m2 and 550 kg
CO2/m2 for the rebar concrete structure and the S structure, respectively.
In terms of structure materials, in Case A the total embodied CO2 emission is 326.75 kg
CO2/m2 constituting nearly 70 percent of the total embodied carbon footprint of the Case A.
In this regard, Case B’s structure materials produce around 176 kg CO2/m2 constituting
around 58 percent of the total embodied carbon footprint of the whole building. The difference
originates from the larger mass intensity of steel used in Case A, floor concrete, concrete for
pillars and precast fabricated concrete used in Case A as opposed to Case B. The author of this
study thinks that the strength of the building rather than thermal and environmental
considerations were the key principles of design and construction during communism era in
the whole Kosovo. In South Korea, for instance, only steel and concrete constitute around
80 percent of the total CO2 emission of apartment units ( Jeong et al., 2012). Further Kim et al.
(2013) found that steel and concrete accounted for 75 percent of total CO2 emissions.
In terms of finishing materials, Case B uses more bricks than Case A, which uses fewer
bricks and much more precast fabricated concrete. Hence whereas bricks altogether produce
53.5 kg CO2/m2 in Case B, the embodied carbon footprint of bricks in Case A is much lower
only 8.63 kg CO2/m2 mainly originating not from the difference in use of bricks but in the
use of material quantities of bricks in Case B as opposed to Case A. The author of the
present study concludes that in Case B the bricks are used because of insulation and thermal
envelope of the building as opposed to the uninsulated old communist buildings, which paid
attention only to the strength of the building.
The key differences in embodied carbon footprint of finishing materials between Case A
and Case B originate in the use of wooden parquet and wooden windows in Case A as
opposed to Case B. In this regard, both of these materials produce around 91 kg CO2/m2
constituting around 19 percent of the total embodied CO2 emission of Case A. On the other
hand in Case B insulation materials (Rockwool and stiropore) and PVC windows produce
around 18 kg CO2/m2 constituting around 6.3 percent of the total embodied carbon footprint
of apartment B.
In terms of total materials, the correlation between the total mass and total embodied CO2
emissions is found to be 0.65 in Case A, whereas for Case B the correlation is found to be 0.79.
If the construction of buildings requires a huge amount of resources and accounts for a
substantial percentage of Kosovo’s industry and because the use of energy during life cycle
of the building occupies a large portion, it is necessary to evaluate in future research also
CO2 emissions resulting from the operation and maintenance of apartments and not only
embodied CO2 emission. Next research can be focused on the evaluation of operations CO2
emissions from apartment buildings industry.
 Finally, future research can embrace also other calculation approaches such as Measuring
input-output analysis or hybrid analysis to improve the knowledge base for Kosovo embodied CO2
apartment building industry. In addition, future research can also focus on other types of emission
residential building to include the whole spectrum of residential typologies in the Republic
of Kosovo.

419
References
Alwan, Z. and Jones, P. (2014), “The importance of embodied energy in carbon footprint assessment”,
Structural Survey, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 49-60.
Brunner, P.H. and Rechberger, H. (2004), “Practical handbook of material flow analysis”, International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 337-338.
Cabeza, L.F., Rincón, L., Vilariño, V., Pérez, G. and Castell, A. (2014), “Life cycle assessment (LCA) and
life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: a review”, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 29 No. C, pp. 394-416.
Chang, Y., Ries, R.J. and Wang, Y. (2010), “The embodied energy and environmental emissions of
construction projects in China: an economic input-output LCA model”, Energy Policy, Vol. 38
No. 11, pp. 6597-6603.
Ding, G.K.C. (2014), “3 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of sustainable building materials: an overview”, in
Pacheco-Torgal, F., Cabeza, L.F., Labrincha, J. and Magalhães, A.d. (Eds), Eco-Efficient
Construction and Building Materials, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, Cambridge, pp. 38-62.
Dixit, M.K. (2015), “A framework for an improved input-output-based hybrid method for embodied
energy calculation”, paper presented at 51st Annual International Conference, Texas A&M
University in College Station, April 22-25.
Dixit, M.K., Fernandez-Solis, J.L., Lavy, S. and Culp, C.H. (2012), “Need for an embodied energy
measurement protocol for buildings: a review paper”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 3730-3743.
European Commission (2015), “Energy in Figures – Statistical Pocketbook”, available at: https://ec.
europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics/pocketbook-2018_en (accessed October 28, 2018).
Eurostat (2013), “Energy, transport and environmental indicators”, available: http://epp.eurostat.ec.
europa.eu (accessed October 22, 2018).
Guggemos, A.A. and Horvath, A. (2006), “Decision-support tool for assessing the environmental effects
of constructing commercial buildings”, Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 187-195.
Hammad, A.W.A., Akbarnezhad, A., Rey, D. and Waller, S.T.A. (2015), “Computational method for
estimating travel frequencies in site layout planning”, Journal of Engineering Management,
Vol. 142 No. 5, doi: 10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0001086.
Hammond, G. and Jones, C. (2010), Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE), Version 1.6a.Sustainable
Energy Research Team (SERT), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bath.
Hoxha, L., Latifi, K., Gashi, N. and Dervishi, L. (2013), “Building typology in Kosovo based on it’ s thermal
characteristics”, paper presented at International UBT Conference, Prishtina, November 2.
Huang, C.L., Vause, J., Ma, H.-W. and Yu, C.-P. (2012), “Using material/substance flow analysis to
support sustainable development assessment: a literature review and outlook, resources”,
Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 68 No. 11, pp. 104-116.
Huang, H.P., Bi, J., Zhang, B., Li, X.M., Yang, J. and Shi, L. (2007), “A critical review of material flow
analysis (MFA)”, Acta Ecologica Sinica, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 369-371.
Huang, Y., Bird, R. and Heidrich, O. (2009), “Development of a life cycle assessment tool for
construction and maintenance of asphalt pavements”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17,
pp. 283-296.
IJBPA Jeong, S.Y., Lee, E.S. and Huh, H.J. (2012), “Estimation of CO2 emission of apartment buildings
38,3 due to major construction materials in the Republic of Korea”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 49
No. 6, pp. 437-442.
Joint Research Center (2018), “Fossil CO2 emissions of all world countries – 2018 report”, available at:
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/41811494-f131-11e8-9982-0
1aa75ed71a1/language-enAccessed at 10.04.2019
420 Kayan, A.B. (2017), “Green maintenance for heritage buildings: paint repair appraisal”, International
Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 63-89.
Kim, S., Moon, H.J., Shin, Y., Kim, H.G. and Seo, D.S. (2013), “Life comparative analysis of energy
consumption and CO2 emissions of different building structural frame types”, Scientific World
Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Kitzes, J. (2013), “An introduction to environmentally-extended input-output analysis”, Resources,
Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 489-503.
Langston, Y.L. and Ca, L. (2008), “Reliability of building embodied energy modeling: an analysis of
30 Melbourne case studies”, Construction Management Economics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 147-160.
Lee, J., Tae, S. and Kim, R. (2018), “A study on the analysis of CO2 emissions of apartment housing in
the construction process”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 365-381.
Lenzen, M. and Crawford, R. (2009), “The path exchange method for hybrid LCA”, Environmental
Science and Technology, Vol. 43 No. 21, pp. 8251-8256.
Leontief, W. (1970), “Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an input-output
approach”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 262-271.
Lin, B. and Liu, H. (2015), “CO2 emissions of China’s commercial and residential buildings”, Building
and Environment, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 418-431.
Lupíšek, A., Bureša, M., Volfa, M., Hodkováa, J., Nováčeka, J., Hejtmáneka, P. and Tywoniaka, J. (2015),
“Development and testing of environmentally friendly envelope for energy efficient buildings in
the Czech Republic”, Energy Procedia, Vol. 78, pp. 285-290.
Mansfield, J.R. (2011), “Sustainable refurbishment: some practical regulatory hurdles”, Structural
Survey, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 120-132.
Mao, C., Shen, Q.P., Shen, L.Y. and Tang, L.Y.N. (2013), “Comparative study of greenhouse gas
emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: two case
studies of residential projects”, Energy Buildings, Vol. 66, pp. 165-176.
Omar, W.S.M., Doh, H.J., Panuwatwanich, K. and Miller, D. (2014), “Assessment of the embodied carbon
in precast concrete wall panels using a hybrid life cycle assessment approach in Malaysia”,
Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 10, pp. 101-111.
Ortiz, O., Castells, F. and Sonnemann, G. (2009), “Sustainability in the construction industry: a review of
recent developments based on LCA”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 28-39.
Roh, S., Tae, S. and Kim, R. (2018), “Analysis of embodied environmental impacts of korean apartment
buildings considering major building materials”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 1693-1710.
Rønning, A. and Brekke, A. (2014), “4 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the building sector: strengths
and weaknesses”, in Pacheco-Torgal, F., Cabeza, L.F., Labrincha, J. and Magalhães, A.d. (Eds),
Eco-Efficient Construction and Building Materials, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, Cambridge,
pp. 63-83.
Rowley, H.V., Lundie, S. and Peters, G. (2009), “A hybrid life cycle assessment model for comparison with
conventional methodologies in Australia”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 508-516.
Stephan, A., Crawford, R.H. and de Myttenaere, K. (2013), “A comprehensive assessment of the life
cycle energy demand of passive houses”, Applied Energy, Vol. 112, pp. 23-34.
Suh, S. and Huppes, G. (2005), “Methods for Life Cycle Inventory of a product”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 687-697.
Suh, S., Lenzen, M., Treloar, G.J., Hondo, H., Horvath, A., Huppes, G., Jolliet, O., Klann, U., Krewitt, W., Measuring
Moriguchi, Y., Munksgaard, Y. and Norris, J. (2004), “System boundary selection in Life Cycle embodied CO2
Inventories”, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 657-664.
Syngros, G., Balaras, A.C. and Koubogiannis, G.D. (2017), “Embodied CO2 emissions in building
emission
construction materials of hellenic dwellings”, Procedia Environmental Sciences, Vol. 38,
pp. 500-508.
Takano, A., Winter, S., Hughes, M. and Linkosalmi, L. (2014), “Comparison of life cycle assessment 421
databases: a case study on building assessment”, Building and Environment, Vol. 79, pp. 20-30.
Treloar, G.J. (1997), “Extracting embodied energy paths from input–output tables: towards an
input–output-based hybrid energy analysis method”, Economic Systems Research, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 375-391.
UNEP (2009), “Buildings and Climate Change, Summary for Decision-makers”, available at: www.iclei.
org.br/polics/CD/P2_1_Referencias/8_Instrumentos%20de%20Pol%C3%ADtica%20P%C3%
BAblica/PDF37_UNEP,%202009.%20Buildings%20and%20Climate%20Change%20
Summary%20for%20Decision%20Makers..pdf (accessed October 12, 2018).
Wiedmann, T. (2009), “Editorial: carbon footprint and input–output analysis – an introduction”,
Economic Systems Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 175-186.
Wiedmann, T.O., Suh, S., Feng, K., Lenzen, M., Acquaye, A., Scott, K. and Barrett, J.R. (2011),
“Application of hybrid life cycle approaches to emerging energy technologies – the case of wind
power in the UK”, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 45 No. 13, pp. 5900-5907.

Corresponding author
Visar Hoxha can be contacted at: visar.hoxha@eukos.org

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com