Resources, Conservation and Recycling 69 (2012) 1–9

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of hemp–lime wall constructions in the UK

Kenneth Ip ∗ , Andrew Miller 1
University of Brighton, School of Environment and Technology, Cockcroft Building, Lewes Road, Brighton BN2 4GJ, United Kingdom

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

Article history: Over half of the global raw materials are consumed in the construction of buildings and roads, their
Received 2 December 2011 associated greenhouse gas emissions from excavation to final disposal are pivotal to the change in global
Received in revised form 31 August 2012 climate. Hemp is a natural resource that has recently been used as a low environmental impact mate-
Accepted 4 September 2012
rial in a number of composite products. In buildings, it is increasingly used with a lime base binder in
wall constructions. There are limited data available to evaluate the environmental impact of this type
Keywords:
of construction in the UK. This research aims to identify the processes and materials involved in the
Hemp
construction of hemp–lime walls and to establish their life cycle impact on climate change. The study
Lime
Hemp–lime wall
follows assessment procedures and guidelines of international (ISO14040) and UK (PAS2050) standards.
Greenhouse gas emissions The functional unit defined for the hemp–lime wall construction is 1 m square in area, 300 mm thick
Life cycle assessment with timber frame support inside. Primary data were collected for processes and materials that have no
Sustainable materials existing information. Other processes with impact data available from credible database were adapted
in the assessment by taking into account the conditions and practice in the UK. Assessment was car-
ried out using the SimaPro LCA tool over a lifetime of 100 years. Within the boundary and assumptions
made, results showed the functional unit could sequestrate 82.7 kg of carbon dioxide with a net life cycle
reduction of greenhouse gas emission of 36.08 kg CO2e .
Crown Copyright © 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Centre (Hawthorn Environmental Services Ltd., 2010), and the

The construction of buildings and roads is responsible for nearly
half of the raw materials and energy consumed across the planet
(Edwards, 2010). Construction in the built environment therefore
has major impacts on the depletion of finite resources and on the
greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the combustion of fos-
sil fuels. In order to reduce the associated greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and the resulting impact to climate, it is necessary to
select construction materials that can meet not only the perfor-
mance specifications but also with the lowest level of greenhouse
gas emissions. One such material is hemp, which has been used as
a composite material in a wide variety of products such insulation,
car body components, particulate boards and increasingly in the
construction of building envelopes.
Hemp–lime construction has been used in France throughout
the 1990s (Bevan and Woolley, 2008) but it has not been common
in the UK. However, the trend has changed with the dissemination
of research studies on the method of construction and performance,
such as studies commissioned by the National Non-Food Crops
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 01273 642381; fax: +44 01273 642285.
E-mail addresses: k.ip@brighton.ac.uk (K. Ip), bsb.andrewmiller@gmail.com
(A. Miller).
1
Tel.: +44 01273 500681; fax: +44 01273 642285.
establishment of a UK based growing supply chain for production
and distribution of hemp–lime construction products. Furthermore
its application in high-profile building projects such as the Renew-
able House at BRE Innovation Park (Pritchett, 2009) and the Wine
Society Warehouse at Stevenage (Tradical, 2011) has established
the status of hemp–lime construction as a main stream green tech-
nology in the UK.
Hemp is a fast growing annual plant which is cultivated using
different methods in different countries. Research by Van-der-Werf
(2004) provides a general guidance but the national and regional
practice and process have to be obtained directly from the manu-
facturers or trade organisations. The construction and performance
of buildings using hemp–lime wall have been studied in detail
by Bevan and Woolley (2008). Their study has identified a wide
range of benefits including: exceptionally high levels of air tight-
ness achieved through the monolithic wall construction; improved
air quality due to the hygroscopic properties of the wall; and lower
energy consumption attributed to the heat transfer process involv-
ing sensible and latent thermal capacities of hemp–lime walls.
Evrard and De Herde (2010) also showed in their experimental
measurements relatively higher comfort levels were achieved for
the same energy input when compared to other types of wall con-
struction.
The interest in hemp has generated a number of research stud-
ies related to their life cycle environmental impact. Norton et al.

0921-3449/$ – see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.09.001
2 K. Ip, A. Miller / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 69 (2012) 1–9
(2009) undertook a full life cycle assessment (LCA) of natural fibre in
insulation materials made of hemp and recycled cotton and estab-
lished the embodied energy and global warming potential (GWP).
González-García et al. (2010) in their LCA comparative study on
the environmental impact of hemp and flax as raw materials for
non-wood pulp mills showed both plants had relatively lower input
and impact compared with the same materials obtained from other
agricultural crops. They also identified that the production and use
of fertilizers for hemp cultivation were responsible for as much as
80% of the greenhouse gas emissions. Boutin et al. (2006) carried out
a comprehensive life cycle study on hemp–lime construction com-
missioned by the French Ministry of Agriculture, results of which
provided a relevant reference for comparing the findings of the
current research in the later section of this paper.
The consumption of fossil fuels in the growing and manufactur-
ing processes has a significant impact on the environmental impact
of hemp lime construction. Cripps et al. (2004) gave a figure of
30 kWh/m3 of primary energy embodied in the manufacturing of
insulation containing hemp however there was no breakdown of
the process to identify how energy was spent. Van-der-Werf (2004)
has published figures for the energy use associated with the field
production of hemp of 11,400 MJ/ha. This was relatively low when
compared to other arable crops such as wheat (18,100 MJ/ha) and
maize (23,000 MJ/ha).
Lime and its derivatives are the main ingredients in the binder
used in the hemp–lime wall construction. Lime is a processed mate-
rial widely used in the building industry and is produced by heating
calcium carbonate (limestone, chalk, seashells or coral rock) in a
kiln to a temperature of approximately 900 ◦ C. At this tempera-
ture the calcium carbonate is chemically changed, or calcinated,
to form calcium oxide (quicklime). Approximately 1.7 tonnes of
limestone is required to produce 1 tonne of quicklime and around
0.7 tonnes of CO2 are given off (Williams, 2009). Water and quick-
lime are combined to produce hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide)
which is used in the building construction. During the life of a build-
ing, the embedded lime (calcium hydroxide) slowly carbonates by
absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and changed back to calcium
carbonate. It is possible to carbonate up to 90% of the CO2 emitted
from the calcination for pure lime (Berge, 2009). As a widely used
traditional building material, the LCA of lime and their products are
well documented in LCA databases (EcoInvent, 2010).
Apart from hemp, straw is another crop used in the construc-
tion of lightweight wall in the UK (Cripps et al., 2004; Yates, 2006).
While there are existing studies on the structural and thermal per-
formance of constructions involving the use of crops, very limited
investigation has been carried out specifically on quantifying their
environmental impact when used in the UK. Apart from the study
by Boutin et al. (2006), the work by Sodagar et al. (2011) for a straw
bale house is the most relevant study on LCA of a crop used in the
construction of walls which reported potential carbon reduction of
61% over a 60-year life cycle of the building. The research reported
in this paper therefore aims to establish the processes and materi-
als involved in the construction of hemp–lime walls in the UK and
to develop a process model enabling the assessment of its life cycle
impact on climate change.
2. Scope and methodology
This research aims to establish the life cycle greenhouse gas
emissions associated with the construction of a functional unit of
a hemp–lime wall in the UK. Recent developments in life cycle
assessments have broadly distinguished two types of LCA meth-
ods – the attributional LCA and the consequential LCA (Finnveden
et al., 2009). The attributional LCA aims to describe the physical flow
to and from a life cycle and its subsystems; it uses average figures
and excludes the use of marginal data. In the case of consequen-
tial LCA, it aims to describe the environmental consequence of an
analysis decision where marginal data are used to assess the con-
sequence. The attributional approach using average data for each
process is considered appropriate and therefore adopted for this
study. The assessment follows the guidelines set out in the interna-
tional standards ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 for life cycle assessment
in environmental management (BSI, 2006a,b), and the UK standard
PAS2050 (BSI, 2011) for the assessment of the life cycle green-
house gas emissions of goods and services. The impact has been
based on the IPCC baseline model and evaluated in terms of cli-
mate change with global warming potential characterisation for
each greenhouse gas over a lifecycle of 100 years (IPCC, 2007).
The functional unit is a 1 m × 1 m × 0.3 m (thick) vertical
hemp–lime wall and has a density of 275 kg/m3 . It is made up of
30 kg hemp, 50 kg lime-binder and included 75 kg water for the
hemp–lime mix preparation. Two pieces of 1 m × 100 mm × 50 mm
sawn timber kiln dried from 70% to around 10% of moisture
(Boutin et al., 2006) are embedded in the functional unit to provide
structural support. The configuration and characteristics of the
functional unit are summarised and shown in Table 1 under the
heading of ‘Current study’.
3. Inventory and assessment
The data for the materials and processes in the life cycle of
the hemp–lime wall were gathered from a combination of both
primary and secondary sources. Primary data were collected by
semi-structured interviews and questionnaires with hemp growers
and manufacturers. Secondary data were extracted from a vari-
ety of sources including published LCA studies, industry figures
and life cycle databases. Following results of the literature review,
visits, interviews and analysis of data, a process map capturing the
life cycle input, output and key processes in the production and
construction of a hemp–lime wall in the UK was established as
illustrated in Fig. 1. The three main processes involved and their
inventories described in the following sections are cultivation of
the hemp, processing of hemp and construction of the hemp–lime
wall.
3.1. Cultivation of hemp
Hemp is an extremely robust annual crop that is planted in
late spring when the soil is warming up. Seed drilling takes place
from April up to the end May after ploughing and harrowing of the
land. It has a remarkable rate of growth, often reaching heights
in excess of 4 m by August when it is cut with specially devel-
oped equipment. After 2–3 weeks, the dry hemp straw is baled
and stored on farm until required for processing, where the fibre
is separated from the woody core (Silverster, 2010b). Yields of
hemp vary depending on site conditions and agricultural processes.
European Industrial Hemp Association stated that average yields
reported by their members were approximately 6 tonnes/ha (Karus,
2003), which is corroborated by Van-der-Werf (2004) who stated
that French studies had shown yields of 6.7 tonnes/ha. In the UK
Department of Environment Farming and Rural Area (DEFRA, 2005)
reported a yield between 6 and 9 tonnes/ha. For this study, a mean
figure of 7.5 tonnes/ha has been adopted in the assessment.
3.1.1. Seed production
Most hemp grown in the UK utilises seed imported from France
therefore assumptions of shipping (round trip of 100 km), road
transport (round trip of 300 km) and packaging (0.004 tonne/tonne)
of seed have been made in this assessment. The energy and emis-
sion data for seed production have been derived from a study by
ADAS, an environmental and rural consultant, on flax and hemp
 K. Ip, A. Miller / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 69 (2012) 1–9 3

Table 1
Comparison of the functional units in two studies.

French study Current study

Area 1 m2 of hemp–lime wall 1 m2 of hemp–lime wall

250 500 250 200 600 200

150
150

260mm

300mm
150 x 40
100 x 50
Section

1000mm 1000mm

Wall type Load bearing wall Non-load bearing wall

Timber frame In centre In centre
Rendering No No
Thickness 260 mm 300 mm
Density 330 kg/m3 275 kg/m3
Construction method Spray Cast between temporary shuttering
Lifetime Over 100 years Over 100 years

Materials
Lime binder 54.5 kg 50 kg
Hemp shiv 24.8 kg 30 kg
Timber Frame 0.012 m3 0.010 m3
Water 37.2 kg 75 kg

Energy
Electricity for mixing – 1.2 kWh
Electricity for mixing and spraying 1.5 kWh –
Transportation 1.106 kg diesel 12690 kg km

Carbon emissions (kg CO2e )

Hemp shiv 6.30 5.76
Other raw materials 33.00 37.11
Construction and haulage 0.87 3.76
Total 40.17 46.63

Carbon storage (kg CO2e )

Hemp shiv 52.20 45.82
Timber frame 9.90 8.34
Lime-binder 13.60a 28.55
Total 75.70 82.71
Overall GHG emissions (kg CO2e ) −35.53 −36.08
a
Supply by manufacturer.

production in the UK (ADAS, 2005). It reported forty kilograms of entails the use of a 7.5 tonne lorry with an average travel distance
seed was needed per hectare, equivalent to 0.00667 kg of seed/kg of of 23 miles (37 km)/ha.
hemp produced based on the production of 7.5 tonne of hemp/ha.

3.1.2. Fertilizer production 3.2. Processing of hemp

The production of hemp straw requires three fertilisers: ammo-
nium nitrate (N), triple superphosphate (P) and potassium chloride
(K). The amount of nitrogen fertilisation requires varies from 60
to 200 kg/ha depending on whether the intended crop is purely for
fibre, a dual crop or purely for seeds. In the UK trial Ministry of Agri-
culture, Fisheries and Food reported a requirement of 200 kg/ha
(MAFF, 2000) while ADAS (ADAS, 2005) reported a requirement
of 60–160 kg/ha. Requirements for phosphate and potash fertilis-
ers requirement depends on soil indices and varies from 55 to
120 kg/ha and 80 to 200 kg/ha, respectively (ADAS, 2005). The
quantity of fertilizer used in the current study is based on data
collected from visits to farms and interviews: ammonium nitrate
(N) 0.0124 kg, triple superphosphate (P) 0.0133 kg and potassium
chloride (K) 0.0167 kg/kg of hemp (Silverster, 2010b).
3.1.3. Fuel for farm machinery
Machinery is used in all processes of the hemp cultivation from
ploughing to baling. The consumption of fuel for the machinery was
derived from data gathered from the farm visits (Silverster, 2010b)
which are summarised in Table 2. The total amount of diesel fuel
used by farm machinery is 65.9 L/ha. In addition, the transporta-
tion of materials between hemp farm and hemp processing factory
Hemp bales are transported from stores to factory by lorry. The
hemp is chopped after the bales are opened and fed into the process
line. The next stage is decortification, which mechanically removes
the fibres from the straw and separates them to fibre, shives and
dust. These processes as shown in Fig. 2 (Duckett, 2009) are com-
pletely dry and non-polluting. The final products are shiv (for the
hemp–lime construction), fibre, dust and waste. The hemp fibre
can be used in many products such as ropes and canvas. The hemp
dust can be used as filler in plastics, lime render or compressed for
use as fuel logs. The GHG emissions related to these by-products are
separate studies and they are outside the current system boundary.
The data for the processing of hemp used in this study were
based on a complete processing line produced by Van Domelle
Engineering (Domelle, 2009) which was installed and used by a
hemp product company in the UK. The outputs by weight from
the processing line are 52% bagged shiv, 28% baled fibres, 17%
briquette of hemp dust and 3% of waste. The production line is pow-
ered by electricity from the grid and consumes 0.034 kWh/tonne of
input hemp (Domelle, 2009, Silverster, 2010a). The line can process
6–8 tonnes of hemp straw per hour; however, a rate of 4 tonnes/h
is more common and is adopted in the assessment.
4 K. Ip, A. Miller / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 69 (2012) 1–9

Fig. 1. Process map and system boundary.

3.3. Construction of hemp–lime wall
In the UK, most hemp–lime walls are constructed using a
blend of specially prepared hemp shiv and lime based binder. The
hemp and lime binder are mixed on site by an electric mixer. The
hemp–lime mixture can be sprayed using a modified dry spray
concrete system or alternatively, as selected for this study, poured
into the timber shuttering and manually tamped as shown in Fig. 3
(Pritchett, 2009). The assessment model does not include final ren-
dering and finishes to the internal and external wall surfaces to
allow direct comparison with other comparable technologies. The
wastage is negligible as spillages can be re-used during construc-
tion process.
3.3.1. Lime binder
Although the main ingredients have been reported by
researchers such as Evrard and De Herde (2010) to consist of
high purity air–lime blended with cement and other pozzolanic
and mineral materials, no published figures are made available
from manufacturers. However there are some figures quoted by
Bevan and Woolley (2008) and in communication (Mohammadi,
2010) with a manufacturer. Based on the information gathered the
 K. Ip, A. Miller / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 69 (2012) 1–9 5

Fig. 2. Decortication and fibre separation from straw to dust, fibre and shives.
Source: Duckett (2009).

Fig. 3. Left: hemp–lime mixture cast into shutter. Right: dried hemp–lime wall with shutter removed.
Source: Pritchett (2009).

Table 2 current study has adopted a mixture by weight of 75% of hydrated

Fuel related activities in the hemp cultivation.
lime (CL90S), 15% of hydraulic lime (NHL5) and 10% of pozzolans
Process Details Fuel (litres of diesel) and other additives for use in the assessment.
used per hectare

Ploughing Distance 3.33 km/ha 125 hp Massey 13.3 3.3.2. Timber frame
Ferguson tractor (30 L diesel/h) Softwood timber used for the structural support is assumed to
2.25 ha/h
come from a conifer forest where it is sawn and kiln dried to around
Harrowing Distance 3.33 km/ha 125 hp Massey 13.3
Ferguson tractor (30 L diesel/h)
10% of moisture with a density 460 kg/m3 . Sawn timber is delivered
2.25 ha/h by lorry to site at a distance of 100 km.
Seed drilling Distance 3.33 km/ha 150 hp John Deere 13.3
(30l diesel/h) 2.25 ha/h 3.3.3. Wall construction
Rolling Mileage 1.66 km/ha 5
Harvesting Tractor driven reaper – 4 blade multi 5
The materials for the hemp–lime wall construction are delivered
reaper from factories to site by lorries at UK average load of 58% (DEFRA,
Retting Tractor driven reaper – 4 blade multi 1 2010). The shutter and timber posts are fixed manually. Water,
reaper hemp shiv and the binder are mixed in an electric mixer, which
Baling Large Heston bales 15
consumes 1.2 kWh for each functional unit. The hemp–lime mix-
Total 65.9 ture is poured into the timber shuttering and successively tamped
to make sure it is properly packed in. The shutter is removed
6 K. Ip, A. Miller / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 69 (2012) 1–9

Table 3
Inventory data for the functional unit.

Input Item Quantity

Materials Seed 0.201 kg

Fertilizer N (ammonium nitrate) 0.715385
P (triple superphosphate) 0.767308
K (potassium chloride) 0.963462
Hydrated lime (CL90S) 37.5 kg
Hydraulic lime (NHL5) 7.5 kg
Hemp shiv 30 kg
Timber frame 0.01 m3
Water 75 kg

Electricity Factory processing 3.99 kWh

Hemp–lime mixer 1.2 kWh

Transportation-factory Lime binder 5000 kg km

to site Hemp shiv 3000 kg km
Timber frame 460 kg km

manually after the wall is set and dry. 30-mm lime/sand rendering
on both sides of the wall is also modelled to provide an indication
of the emissions with a basic finish. Maintenance and decoration of
the wall are excluded from the current model.
3.4. Assessment
The assessment of the lifecycle impact of using hemp–lime con-
struction in the UK was performed by means of the LCA software
SimaPro (PRé, 2010), which is widely used and quoted by LCA
researchers (Pieragostini et al., 2012). The software allows complex
life cycles to be modelled and analysed with data from a range of
optional databases or data specified by users. Existing emissions
data used in the current assessment were mainly based on the
EcoInvent database (EcoInvent, 2010), which is a fully documented
international life cycle inventory widely used by researchers and
industrial companies. The key inventory based on which the pro-
cesses were developed and assessed are summarised in Table 3. The
selected impact assessment methodology meets the requirements
of PAS2050, which complies with the intergovernmental panel on
climate change (IPCC) assessment framework for climate change
based on the GWP of greenhouses gas for a period of 100 years.
After establishing the individual processes involved and their rela-
tionship in the simulation software, process networks of different
levels of details can be generated. Fig. 4 is one such network which
shows the interlink between processes, the quantity of resource
used (the top figure in each box) and the percentage contribution
of the GHG emissions (in the bottom left corner in each box).

Fig. 4. Hemp–lime wall analysis network in SimaPro.

 K. Ip, A. Miller / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 69 (2012) 1–9 7

Table 4
GHG emissions of the functional unit.

Input GHG emissions Absorption/sequestration

kg CO2e % kg CO2e %

Lime binder Lime hydrated 28.70 61.6 −28.55 34.5

Lime hydraulic 6.48 13.9

Hemp shiv Farm machinery diesel 0.18 0.4 −45.82 55.4

Fertilizer N (ammonium nitrate) 3.16 6.8
P (triple superphosphate) 0.81 1.7
K (potassium chloride) 0.25 0.5
Seed production 0.15 0.3

Timber frame 0.98 2.1 −8.34 10.1

Water 0.02 0.05 –
Electricity for all processes 2.29 4.9 –
Transportation 3.6 7.7 –
Subtotal 46.63 100 −82.71 100
Net GHG emissions −36.08 kg CO2e

Table 5
GHG emissions with basic wall finishes.

Construction U-value (W/m2 K) Net GHG emissions (kg CO2e)

Without carbon With carbon sequestration

sequestration (kg CO2e)

Biogenic only Biogenic and lime

300 mm hemp–lime wall, no rendering 0.19 46.63 −7.53 −36.08

300 mm hemp–lime wall, 30 mm 0.189 69.25 15.09 −26.52
lime–sand rendering both sides
30 mm lime rendering 550 mm hemp–lime 0.1 107.29 14.95 −48.45
30 mm lime rendering

The GHG emission figure used for electricity is based on publica-
tion by DEFRA (2010) of the UK Government which represents the
average mixed production and supply systems of UK as required by
the PAS2050. The boundary of the current study is shown in Fig. 1, it
excluded background processes such as: the production and main-
tenance of farm equipment and production line; energy recovery
from hemp dust; storage of shiv; construction and maintenance of
equipment for construction including mixer, screws and shutters;
maintenance of buildings; the energy used in erecting and remov-
ing the shutters; human travelling and their energy consumption.
Some inputs are not taken into account since they comprise less
than 2% of the entire amount of inputs as in the case of the poz-
zolan and additives in the lime-binder (about 0.2%), shutters and
screws (about 0.4%) as well as packaging (0.7%). There is no data
on the end of life of the hemp–lime wall. Apart from disposal to
the landfill, it is possible to crush the hemp–lime wall to use as
lightweight aggregates, spread on fields to increase the PH of the
soil or use as aggregates for building blocks.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Greenhouse gas emissions
Hemp–lime walls are expected to last over 100 years (Boutin
et al., 2006) or at least equal to traditional construction (Cripps et al.,
2004). The current assessment therefore assumed no replacement
of the wall over the assessment period of 100 years. The carbon
content of the timber and hemp shiv sequestered in the hemp–lime
wall construction was taken into account as CO2 storage in accor-
dance with PAS2050 (BSI, 2011). Similarly, the carbonation of lime
that captures carbon dioxide during the life of the wall should
also be considered. For the hemp shiv 1.84 kg of CO2 is locked up
every kg of processed hemp by photosynthesis (Bevan and Woolley,
2008). Applying the weighting factor in PAS2050, 1.5272 kg of
CO2e /kg or 45.82 kg of CO2e per functional unit is stored. The car-
bon content of wood considered for this study is 49.5% of dry wood
matter (Werner et al., 2007). The amount of CO2 sequestered is
therefore 1.81 kg/kg of timber (Boutin et al., 2006). As the func-
tional unit requires 0.01 m3 of timber, or 4.6 kg of timber, hence
8.34 kg of CO2 are stored.
In this study, 0.577 kg of quicklime was used in the production of
hydrated and hydraulic lime used in each kg of lime-binder. As each
kg of quicklime in the binder releases 0.99 kg of CO2 (EcoInvent,
2010) during the calcination process, hence 0.571 kg of CO2 can
be re-absorbed over the life cycle of the functional unit. As the
hemp–lime wall requires 50 kg of lime binder, 28.6 kg of CO2 per
functional unit are re-absorbed.
Results calculated using the assessment tool SimaPro for the
main GHG emissions from the materials and processes are shown in
Table 4. The total GHG emissions are 46.63 kg CO2e . Taking into con-
sideration the carbon sequestrated by hemp shiv of 45.82 kg CO2e
and timber of 8.34 kg CO2e , the initial GHG emission is −7.53 kg
CO2e . Further carbon sequestration by lime binder of 28.55 kg CO2e
will result in net life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from the func-
tional unit as −36.08 kg CO2e . The negative value indicates it has a
positive impact to the climate change due to the storage of green-
house gases.
Results of further study to include 30 mm of lime–sand (3:1)
render to both sides of the wall and model of a wall with lower
U value are summarised in Table 5. With wall render, the overall
hemp–lime wall still can sequester 26.52 kg CO2e over the life cycle.
U value of the wall can be reduced to 0.1 W/m2 K with the thick-
ness hemp–lime composite increases to 550 mm. In this case, the
carbon sequestered is increased to 48.45 kg CO2e . This result can be
related to the study of straw–bale wall by Sodagar et al. (2011)
which indicated a carbon sequestration of 56.75 kg CO2 . Direct
8 K. Ip, A. Miller / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 69 (2012) 1–9
comparison of results is not appropriate due to higher biogenic
content in straw–bale walls and the use of different methodologies.
4.2. Hot spots
The results in Table 4 summarise the key processes and sub-
stances responsible for the highest contributions of GHG are binder
75.5%, fertiliser 8%, and transportation 7.7%. The key parameter
affecting the overall GHG emission is the proportion of hemp in
the wall, for each kg of hemp shiv 1.52 kg of CO2e is stored, the pro-
portion of hemp shiv should therefore be maximised as structurally
permissible.
Sensitivity analysis showed that a decrease of the lime-binder
by an amount of 35% can reduce the GHG emission of the functional
unit by approximately 26% but it also reduces the carbon storage
capacity by about 10 kg. The overall effect is a net GHG emission of
−38.39 of CO2e or an increase of 6% CO2e sequestered. In the culti-
vation stage, the production of fertilisers is responsible for 92.6% of
GHG emissions. The amount of fertiliser used is related to the con-
dition of the land. For a fertile soil a 50% reduction in fertiliser will
reduce its overall GHG contribution from 9% to 4.7%. GHG emissions
are directly related to the distance travelled by the delivery lorries.
The average distance of 100 km is used in the study. For delivery
of longer distance of to 200 km will change the contribution to the
overall GHG emissions from 7.7% to 11.2%.
4.3. Relevance to similar study
The results of current study are compared with a similar study
carried out by Boutin et al. (2006) for the Ministry of Agricul-
ture in France. Many differences exist between the two models
associated with the definition of the functional unit, boundaries,
the agronomy, the method of construction, hemp yield; amount
of fertiliser used, lime-binder composition and the carbon diox-
ide re-absorption rate for lime. Some of these differences and the
key parameters of these two models are shown in Table 1. Direct
comparison is not appropriate; however, the outcomes obtained
in these studies demonstrate similar pattern and magnitude to the
emissions and the potential for carbon storage. Using hemp shiv to
store carbon is effective and the overall impact of hemp–lime wall
construction is positive to the environment. The GHG emissions
depends on the composition of the lime binder, no verified data are
available for use in both studies.
4.4. Interpretation of results
Accuracy of the results is restricted by the existence of detailed
data. Companies are not normally set up with dedicated proce-
dures or instrumentation to record the data for LCA. In this study
some data, for example some energy consumption of equipment,
are based on data supplied by the manufacturers.
The UK conditions in the study are often not adequately rep-
resented by the available data in the database. The adaptation of
data for the materials, energy and process from existing database
is constrained by their details and flexibility to allow changes to be
made. Similarly, assumptions were made as to the weight of the
hemp loads being transported to the factory and the type of lorry
used. The haulage impacts are comparatively minor so should not
significantly affect the overall results.
The current study uses average yield of hemp and the data
collected are mainly based on one season’s growth cycle; it may
therefore not be representative of recurrent inputs and crop yields.
The data used for the analysis of farming processes were dependent
upon the knowledge and estimations of a single individual involved
in the process. However, the hemp industry in the UK is still very
small, the opportunity to triangulate the data was limited, and the
impact of the hemp processing is small compared to that of the
lime.
The rate and quantity of re-carbonation by the lime binder
within the hemp–lime wall depends upon a number of factors,
such as exposure and duration, but no published data is currently
available. While the methodology for calculating the carbon stor-
age of biogenic materials is well defined in PAS2050 (Hammond
and Jones, 2011), the sequestration of carbon by lime based prod-
ucts are often excluded in life cycle assessments (Hammond and
Jones, 2011) due to the lack of data and agreed methodology. Cur-
rent result assumed full re-carbonation over a lifetime of 100 years,
but the results shown in Table 4 should be adjusted when new
knowledge becomes available.
5. Conclusions
This study established the climate change impact of hemp–lime
wall construction in the UK. The life cycle analysis encompassed
the production of hemp shiv, lime-binder and construction of the
hemp–lime wall.
Results showed that for a functional unit of hemp–lime wall
of 1 m2 and 0.3 m thick without any wall finishes can seques-
trate 82.71 kg of CO2e . This not only compensates 46.43 kg CO2e
of GHG emitted in the growing and manufacturing processes but
also enables the storage of 36.08 kg of CO2e . This positive impact
is even more significant when taking into account the displace-
ment of GHG emissions, which would otherwise have been created
if another type of conventional wall construction is used.
As a proven technology applicable to a wide range of buildings,
the environmental implication on a national scale is significant.
This study identified the lime-binder has the biggest contribution
to GHG emissions but accurate assessment was not possible due to
lack of information on its exact composition. The results are compa-
rable to similar study in France and both demonstrated significant
positive impact of hemp–lime walls. The outcomes in this study
contribute towards the formulation of a generic assessment model
enabling assessment of hemp–lime wall construction in the UK.
The ability to input data specific to the building site and sources of
materials will generate more accurate and representative results.
Such quantification is necessary for the full life cycle assessment
of buildings which are constructed using hemp–lime construction
technology.
Future work will enhance the model to incorporate the impact
assessment of operational and end of life emissions of the building
such that the full cradle to grave life cycle impact of hemp–lime
buildings can be evaluated.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Cecile Chevalme of the National
Graduate School of Chemistry of Montpellier in France for the trans-
lation of French publications and processing of data.
References
ADAS. UK Flax and Hemp production: the impact of changes in support measures on
the competitiveness and future potential of UK fibre production and industrial
use. Cambridge, UK: ADAS Centre for Sustainable Crop Management; 2005.
Berge B. The ecology of building materials. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press;
2009.
Bevan R, Woolley T. Hemp lime construction – a guide to building with hemp lime
composites. Bracknell, UK: IHS BRE Press; 2008.
Boutin M-P, Flamin C, Quinton S, Gosse G, Lille I. Etude des caractérisques envi-
ronmentales du chanvre par l’analyse de son cycle de vie. Paris: Ministere de
l’agriculture et de la peche, République Française; 2006.
BSI. ISO. 14040: 2006 Environmental management – life cycle assessment – princi-
ples and framework. UK: BSI; 2006a.
BSI. ISO. 14044: 2006 Environmental management – life cycle assessment – require-
ments and guidelines. UK: BSI; 2006b.
 K. Ip, A. Miller / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 69 (2012) 1–9
BSI. PAS. 2050: Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas
emissions of goods and services. London: BSI; 2011.
Cripps A, Handyside R, Dewar L, Fovargue J. Crops in construction handbook. London,
UK: CIRIA; 2004.
DEFRA. UK Flax and Hemp Production: the impact of changes in support measures on
the competitiveness and future potential of UK fibre production and industrial
use. London, UK: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs; 2005.
DEFRA. Guidelines to Defra/DECC’s greenhouse gas conversion factors for company
reporting. UK: Department for Enviroment Food and Rural Affairs; 2010.
Domelle V. Bast fibre processing pneumatic transport and filtration; 2009,
http://www.vandommele.be/movies/VDE18FolderWeb.html (accessed
01.05.12).
Duckett M. Hemp fibres in construction. Presentation given at networking event
exploring applications for industrial hemp and flax. Brighton, UK: University of
Brighton; 2009.
EcoInvent. Ecoinvent V2.2. Ecoinvent centre. Switzerland: St. Gallen; 2010.
Edwards B. Rough guide to sustainability. 3rd ed. London: RIBA Enterprises; 2010.
Evrard A, De Herde A. Hygrothermal performance of lime-hemp wall assemblies.
Journal of Building Physics 2010;34:5–25.
Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, et al. Recent
developments in life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management
2009;91:1–21.
González-García S, Hospido A, Feijoo G, Moreira MT. Life cycle assessment of raw
materials for non-wood pulp mills: hemp and flax. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 2010;54:923–30.
Hammond G, Jones C. BG 10/2011 Embodied carbon: the inventory of carbon and
energy (ICE): Building Services Research and Information Association; 2011.
Hawthorn Environmental Services Ltd. NNFCC 09-009 An investigation of the
potential to scale up the use of renewable construction materials in the UK,
with a view to setting targets to raise profile of materials and stimulate sector
growth; 2010, http://www.nnfcc.co.uk/tools/investigation-of-the-potential-to-
scale-up-the-use-of-renewable-construction-materials-in-uk-nnfcc-09-009
(accessed 10.09.11).
IPCC. Intergovernmental panel on climate change: fourth assessment report – the
physical science basis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
9
Karus M. European hemp industry 2002: Cultivation, processing and product lines.
Germany: European Industrial Hemp Association (EIHA); 2003.
MAFF. Project NF0307 – Final project report: hemp for Europe manufacturing and
production system. London, UK: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food;
2000.
Mohammadi A. Personal communication with Hemp Technology Ltd.; 2010.
Norton A, Murphy R, Hill C, Newman G. The life cycle assessment of natural fibre
insulation materials. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on
non-conventional materials and technologies (NOCMAT); 2009.
Pieragostini C, Mussati MC, Aguirre P. On process optimization considering LCA
methodology. Journal of Environmental Management 2012;96:43–54.
PRé. SimaPro LCA software Ver 7.2.3. PRé Consultants. Printerweg 18, 3821 AD
Amersfoort, The Netherlands; 2010.
Pritchett I. Hemp and lime composits in sustainable construction. The Journal of The
Building Limes Forum 2009;16:34–7.
Silverster A. Private communication with Stefaan Declerck of Van Domelle Engi-
neering; 2010a.
Silverster A. Private communications with Harrison Spinks Farm, Hemp Technology
Ltd. and Incrops Ltd.; 2010b.
Sodagar B, Rai D, Jones B, Wihan J, Fieldson R. The carbon-reduction potential of
straw–bale housing. Building Research & Information 2011;39:51–65.
Tradical. Building lime innovation case studies; 2011, http://www.lhoist.co.uk/
tradical/application-case-studies.html (accessed 10.01.11).
Van-der-Werf H. Life cycle analysis of field production of fibre hemp, the
effect of production practices on environmental impacts. Euphytica 2004;140:
13–23.
Werner F, Althaus H, Kunniger T, Richter K, Jungbluth N. Life cycle inventories
of wood as fuel and construction material. Final report Ecoinvent 2000 No. 9.
Dübendorf, Switzerland: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories; 2007.
Williams A. Essential guides for building designers: lime green – traditional
mortar mixes for today – NBS shortcut 88; 2009, http://www.thenbs.com/
BuildingRegs/NBSShortcuts/ShowContents.aspx?section=088&topic=b 01
ASHCT BR 08801&tl=no (accessed 01.10.11).
Yates T. The use of non-food crops in the UK construction industry. Journal of the
Science of Food and Agriculture 2006;86:1790–6.