Environment, Development and Sustainability (2022) 24:8441–8463

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01793-3

Relational pre‑impact assessment of conventional housing

features and carbon footprint for achieving sustainable built
environment

Syed Shujaa Safdar Gardezi1   · Nasir Shafiq2 · Muhammad Waris Ali Khan3

Received: 16 July 2020 / Accepted: 23 August 2021 / Published online: 1 September 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021

Abstract
Sustainable comfortable living requires comprehensive energy consumption planning for
the housing habitat. Besides other energy planning considerations, the variations in physi-
cal features of built facilities, their environmental interaction, and resulting operational life
cycle carbon footprint are an important focus in contemporary research. Therefore, this
research aims to explore the relationship between the physical features of the built facil-
ity and the resulting carbon footprint for conventional housing designs. A combination of
conventional Malaysian model housing units was developed in 3D virtual prototypes by
building information modeling, and regression analysis was used to investigate the envi-
ronmental impact paradigm of the built facility. Correspondingly, an operational C ­ O2 pre-
assessment was also examined by the partial life cycle assessment technique during the
early stages of design and planning. The results of this study show a positive and statisti-
cally significant linear relation of carbon footprint with the area, volume, and power rating
parameters. The outcome of this study is imperative for designing resource-efficient liv-
ing facilities and achieving a sustainable built environment through a proactive life cycle
assessment of housing construction projects.

Keywords  Built environment · Building information modeling · Carbon footprint ·

Environmental impact · Housing sector · Operational CO2 · Tropical climate

* Syed Shujaa Safdar Gardezi

dr.shujaasafdar@cust.edu.pk
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Capital University of Science and Technology (CUST),
Islamabad Expressway, Kahuta Road, Zone‑V, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS,
32610 Seri Iskandar, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia
3
Faculty of Industrial Management, University Malaysia Pahang (UMP), Lebuhraya Tun Razak,
Gambang, 26300 Kuantan, Malaysia

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 8442 S. S. S. Gardezi et al.

1 Introduction

Energy is the primary source required to maintain comfort levels and perform daily opera-
tions. It may be utilized for heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting, and operation of electri-
cal appliances throughout the design life of a building Sartori and Hestnes (2007). How-
ever, such consumptions impart a negative environmental impact (Blom et al., 2010a). The
generation of energy consumes a fair number of natural resources, fossil fuels that ulti-
mately results in carbon emissions known as “operational emissions or carbon footprint.”
The total life cycle emission of a building constitutes embodied as well as operational car-
bon footprints (Dixit et al., 2012), and the operational part has been dominant and long-
term contribution over the useful life. The building sector is considered the biggest single
contributor to world energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, a good
understanding of the nature and structure of energy use in buildings is crucial for establish-
ing adequate future energy and climate change policies (Allouhi et al., 2015).
In industrialized countries, the operation of buildings has been reported to result in an
enormous 30% of greenhouse gases with a continuously increasing impact on the envi-
ronment (Esin & Yüksek, 2013). Asdrubali et al. (2013) highlighted 77% and 85% of the
operational carbon footprint for the Italian detached house and office building, respectively.
More than 83% of inventoried environmental burdens have been reported by Scheuer et al.
(2003). Goggins et al. (2010) mentioned that the energy consumed by buildings in the UK
accounted for 47% of its total C ­ O2 emissions. According to Rossi et al. (2012), the opera-
tional phase has the highest impact, representing approximately 62–98% of the total impact
on the whole life cycle. Sharma et al. (2011) have reported contributions of more than 50%
to the total GHG emission and 80–85% to the total energy consumption in buildings. Simi-
larly, the study conducted by Wu et al. (2012) indicated a contribution of 85.99% of energy
consumption and 81.29% of ­CO2 with a strong correlation between the two variables.
The observed drastic increase in energy consumptions in the last decade requires sig-
nificant measures to achieve the goal of global energy efficiency as the European Union
(EU) framed a road map for achieving a competitive low-carbon economy and commit-
ted to reducing its GHG emission by 80–95% till 2050 (Trovato et  al., 2020). The cur-
rent serious global challenge of energy efficiency requires a solution that ensures reduced
levels of energy-related emissions and ultimately global carbon footprint. Understanding
energy consumption patterns remain the key to formulate an efficient sustainable strategy
(Batlle et al., 2020). A thorough assessment at early life stages creates the potential for a
sustainable environment (Danatzko & Sezen, 2011; Roufechaei et al., 2014; Sharma et al.,
2011). However, the outcome from the assessments has not been standardized. It varies
from region to region and is mostly limited to post-assessment. Different parameters such
as level of comfort, climatic conditions and operating schedules (Ramesh et al., 2010), fuel
used for energy (Rossi et al., 2012), operational period (Chang et al., 2012), and life span
(Ramesh et al., 2010) considerably affect the outcome in such environmental assessments.
Besides, the climatic and system boundary variations, the physical features of built facili-
ties impact the carbon footprint contributions.
The challenges and opportunities to achieve energy efficiency need to be properly
explored and understood with various aspects (Yatim et al., 2016). The current study aims
to investigate the relational response of physical parameters of housing facilities and opera-
tional carbon footprint. A pre-assessment of C ­ O2 emissions at the planning stage would
enhance environmental management by optimizing the daily operation and better control
strategies.

13
Relational pre‑impact assessment of conventional housing… 8443

2 Literature review

The world has witnessed a drastic increase in energy demand over the last decade (Tro-
vato et al., 2020). For most economies, especially developing, energy remains a lifeline for
their survival and a vital source that needs to be dealt with care and sustainable manner.
Industrialization and urban growth have been a major focus for many developing countries,
however, achieving innovative methods to predict and reduce energy consumption patterns
still require further research (Li & Wei, 2015). The building sector remains responsible for
significant demands of energy (Rauf & Crawford, 2015) and is considered as the biggest
single contributor to world energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
The managerial framework of resource-based view (RBV), considering energy a stra-
tegic resource for the economy, can guide to achieve sustainable solutions. It supports that
the resources capable of promoting sustainability by preventing emissions and environ-
mental burdens need to be valued (Hart, 1995; Hart & Dowell, 2011). Therefore, a good
understanding of the nature and structure of energy use in buildings is crucial for establish-
ing adequate future energy and climate change policies. The operational phase of build-
ings along with their environmental impacts remains an area of concern for researchers
(Franzoni, 2011). Yamin et al. attributed more than 1/3rd of the energy consumption to the
buildings at a global level along with most of the global greenhouse gas emissions (Yan
et al., 2019).
The barriers of benchmarking differ from one industry to another due to energy man-
agement practices, consumption, intensity patterns and geographical limitation, etc. How-
ever, research has proved that its assessment requires a multidisciplinary approach includ-
ing knowledge of architecture and engineering (Lee et al., 2011). Ma et al. (2017) Northern
China, explored 119 public sector buildings to analyze the main factor that influences
energy consumptions by developing four different scenarios. The air conditioning, light-
ing density, and building envelop resulted in significant impacts on energy consumption
patterns. Besides, the built-up area was also an important physical parameter under inves-
tigation. Rauf and Crawford (2015) conducted a study to observe the relationship of build-
ing service life of a single story detached type house with its embodied energy by adopt-
ing a life cycle approach. The service life, age, source of data, and energy mix have been
observed as significant factors for I-O-based hybrid analysis. They highlighted operational
energy as a critical component and recommended exploring its relationship with these
crucial factors to address this limitation. Lin et  al. (2018) studied a data-driven analysis
for operational and maintenance for various buildings in UAE. The study has reported the
physical parameters of buildings, including operational patterns, as significant contributors
to energy consumptions. Lai and Lu (2019) benchmarked the carbon emission of 32 com-
mercial buildings in Hong Kong. Their study explored the factors that impact the carbon
emission level of these existing buildings; total floor area, age, common floor area and con-
cluded that the total floor area of the building was strongly correlated with these environ-
mental impacts. Kim et al. (2020) analyzed the energy performance of terminal buildings
for 30 exiting airports in North America. The floor area was an important factor kept in
consideration in this study to investigate the energy patterns.
Kim and Bae (2010) assessed the operational energy of a multistory residential build-
ing in Korea. Pons and Wadel (2011) analyzed the environmental impact of energy use
in a school in Spain. Dodoo et  al. (2014) evaluated the operational carbon footprint for
a multistory residential apartment in the Swedish climate. The area, size, orientation and
location, materials, type, and efficiency of appliances impact the emissions associated with

13
 8444 S. S. S. Gardezi et al.

the operational energy consumed within a house (Crawford, 2011). Although the output of
any LCA study depends on the scope, goals, and geographic location (Cabeza et al., 2013;
Rajagopalan et  al. 2012), the researchers have also highlighted various features of the
built facility that affect the outputs. Mourão et al. (2019) reported the operational energy
demand is dependent upon the parameters of user behavior and requirements, climatic con-
ditions, traditional construction features, weather conditions, and socio-economic factors.
Gungor et  al. (2021) have agreed to a vital role of housing and its structure in climatic
variations. Similarly, (Pekkan et  al., 2021) concluded that land cover changes caused by
infrastructure projects (wind farms) indirectly impact the climatic change by causing physi-
cal degradations along with increasing atmospheric carbon content.
Roh et al. (2014) highlighted the assessment objectives, regional environment, the loca-
tion of the facility, system boundary adopted, and database as vital aspects in the selection
of a suitable system for GHG emission assessments. Parkin et  al. (2020) stressed opera-
tional energy assessments are dependent upon factors including assessment boundaries,
seasonal energy demand, energy mixes, multiple design options, footprint area, number of
stories, and design features and vital to observe. Ortiz-Rodríguez et al. (2010) conducted
a study to assess two dwellings in Spain and Colombia. The study reported household
size, climate, energy sources, and climate social differences as significant features for life
cycle contributions. The service life of the building has also been reported as an impor-
tant parameter in operational energy consumption patterns. (Batlle et  al., 2020); Huang
et al. (2013), Thormark (2002). Basbagill et al. (2013) reported the physical features of a
building including its type, size, location, and a geometry that have a vital impact on the
environmental impact of energy consumptions. Similarly, Ramesh et al. (2010) mentioned
climatic conditions, energy mix, building materials, building features; Alyami and Rezgui
(2012) Climatic conditions, construction techniques, and building stocks. According to
Allouhi et  al. (2015), the variability in human comfort levels requirements, architectural
design, geography, and climate data pertinent to residential buildings remain the main chal-
lenges for achieving energy consumption trends. The fuel utilized in the energy generation
is also a critical factor for consideration during the assessment of carbon emissions associ-
ated with the energy usage and varies with fuel type (Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2013).
A comprehensive understanding of life cycle emissions is the foundation for the stra-
tegic reduction of C ­ O2 emissions of buildings (Ji et  al., 2020). With every limitation of
resources, the development of innovative low-carbon design strategies, especially for resi-
dential buildings, has become a major area of concern. The shrinking global carbon budg-
ets have further necessitated the holistic design and optimization approaches for buildings,
integrating various design aspects throughout the life cycle (Papachristos et al., 2020).

3 Methodology

The current study is limited to the operational phase with partial LCA (Gardezi et  al.,
2016; Monahan & Powell, 2011). Single and double-story housing units with detached,
semi-detached, and terraced-type conventional construction in the Malaysian tropical cli-
mate have been assessed. 3D virtual prototyping was performed for the selected cases
using building information modeling (BIM). Based on the inventory developed from the
data extracted from virtual modeling, the carbon footprint was calculated for the opera-
tional phase of the houses using Eq. 1

13
Relational pre‑impact assessment of conventional housing… 8445

∑
(1)
{ }
CO2 (opt) = Ldes × Neqpt × PWR × OPhrs × NOdays × E(f )

whereas Ldes = Design life (years) Neqpt = Number of equipment (numbers), PWR = Power

ratings (Kwh), ­OPhrs = Operating hours, ­NOdays = Number of operating days, E(f) = Emis-
sion factor / unit fuel consumed.
Five houses of detached, semi-detached, and terraced types that are usually adopted in
Malaysia with single and double-story heights were selected. Details of the housing units
are highlighted in Table 1.
The selection of case studies was governed by a specific criterion developed for the
study with the following conditions:

1. The area between two different units in the same category should not be less than 100
sft.
2. The difference of one size, either length or width, between two options in the same
category should not be less than 5ft.
3. Units shall be limited to the single and double-story type of housing.
4. The units existing in actual or planned construction in the conventional Malaysian hous-
ing sector are to be considered only.

This criterion was adopted to rule out the inclusion of insignificant differences in carbon
footprint contributions by housing units. A selection lower than the defined criteria was
observed not to make a significant difference of emissions among each other. After fulfill-
ing the criteria, five housing units qualified and were adopted in the study.

3.1 BIM modeling

Electricity is the primary source of energy for the operation of different household equip-
ments. The number of equipment employed was based on the design of facilities and
extracted from the models developed in a virtual environment using building information
modeling (BIM), Fig. 1.
The power ratings of the equipment, as shown in Table 2, were based on average values
obtained from a survey of the nearby city where the study is conducted, technical data/
specification of the manufacturers, and data provided by the official department.
The data validation and reliability were ensured by adopting the triangulation method.
The main intention of using triangulation is to improve the consistency, reliability, and
rationality of the findings. In this respect, the following procedures were followed;

Table 1  Details of the housing units

Description Area (sft) Story height Type of house Type of construction

H–01 1,625.00 Single Detached RCC Frame

H–02 2,925.00 Double Semi-detached RCC Frame
H–03 2,800.00 Single Semi-detached RCC Frame
H–04 3,025.00 Double Terraced RCC Frame
H–05 3,415.00 Double Terraced RCC Frame

13
 8446 S. S. S. Gardezi et al.

Fig. 1  Virtual model using BIM

Table 2  Power rating of Equipment Power

household equipment rating
(kWh)

Lights 36
Ceiling fans 85
Television 250
Fridge/refrigerator 1200
Washing machine 850
Vacuum 1000
Iron 1000
AC 1250
Computer 280
Microwave 1000
Juicer/blender 500
Toaster 1000
Rice cooker 1000

• Firstly, the bill of quantity, drawings, and other technical details were acquired from the
participating organization.
• Secondly, by utilizing the field experience and quantity surveying standards, the quanti-
fications were performed from the available drawings/technical details.
• Lastly, the virtual models were developed using BIM. The life cycle inventories (LCI)
were extracted from these 3D models.

All these data banks were reviewed critically, compared, and cross-checked for any
major deviations. No significant variations were observed, and data were observed to be
reliable.
The daily time of operation for most of the types of equipment was based on official
guidelines and recommendations from Tenaga Nasional Berhad, Malaysia. To observe
the effect of time on operational contributions and come up with a dynamic assessment,
the design life for the housing model varied from 50 to 70 years, i.e., three cases with an

13
Relational pre‑impact assessment of conventional housing… 8447

Fig. 2  Electricity generation mix Coal

in Malaysia 41%

Oil
2%
Diesel
3%

Hydro
7%

Others
1%

Gas
46%

Table 3  Implied carbon Product description gCO2/kWh

emission factors from electricity
generation in kWh
Natural gas 400
Diesel oil 725
Bituminous coal 875
Fuel oil 675

interval of 10 years. The different life spans have been selected based on the adoptions of
previous studies (Blom et  al., 2010a; Chau et  al., 2012; Dodoo et  al., 2010; Ortiz-Rod-
ríguez et  al., 2010). The carbon footprint for the design life cycle was calculated utiliz-
ing carbon emission factors based on the electricity generation mix reported, Fig. 2. These
factors for conversion of electricity in kWh to Kg-CO2 were based on the electricity gen-
eration mix reported in Malaysian energy statics handbook 2014 (Commission, 2014) and
implied emission factors for electricity generation by International Energy Agency (IEA)
statistics report “CO2 emissions from fuel combustion- edition 2015 (Agency, 2015)”,
Table 3. Kg-CO2 has been adopted as a functional unit in the current study.

3.2 Life cycle assessment (LCA)

To evaluate the environmental impact of the operational phase of buildings, life cycle
assessment (LCA) has been the key methodology adopted by researchers as presented in
Table  4. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) defines it as “ a technique
to assess the environmental performance of a product, process or activity from “cradle
to grave,” i.e., from the extraction of raw materials to final disposal (14040, 2006).” The

13
 8448

13
Table 4  Application of LCA in the housing sector
Researcher Type of residence Country Focus

Peuportier (2001) House France Environmental impact

Mithraratne and Vale (2004) House New Zealand Embodied and operational energy
Hacker et al. (2008) House – Operational ­CO2 emissions
Ortiz-Rodríguez et al. (2010) Dwellings Spain, Colombia, Energy consumption and environmental impacts
Gustavsson et al. (2010) Multistory apartment Sweden Primary energy and carbon emissions
Crawford (2011) House Australia Zero emissions
Cuéllar-Franca and Azapagic (2012) House UK Environmental impact
Hong et al. (2012) Multifamily house South Korea Operational ­CO2 emissions
Dahlstrøm et al. (2012) Conventional and passive house Norway Operational energy and GHG emissions
Li et al.(2013) Residential China Carbon efficiency
Proietti et al. (2013) Passive house Italy Energy consumption
Oyarzo and Peuportier (2014) House Chile Operational ­CO2 emissions
Evangelista et al. (2018) Residential buildings Brazil Environmental performance analysis of
Allacker et al. (2019) Housing stock Europe Relationship between micro-scale eco-innova-
tions on the macro-scale of housing stock in
Europe pertinent to energy patterns
Eichner and Elsharawy (2020) High-rise residential building Cairo Pre-design assessment emission reduction,
energy, and cost-saving along with the feasi-
bility of renewable resources
S. S. S. Gardezi et al.
Relational pre‑impact assessment of conventional housing… 8449

current research work under review is pertinent to the operational carbon footprint. There-
fore, the partial life cycle assessment has been adopted in compliance with ISO 14040.
The system boundary of “site to grave” was being adopted to cater to the emissions from
the operational phase only throughout the life span. According to ISO 14040, the scope
(including the system boundary and level of detail) of an LCA depends on the subject and
the intended use of the study. The depth and the breadth can differ considerably depending
on the goal of a particular LCA.

3.3 Variables and their selection

It is of critical importance to select all the variables used in this study which subsequently
enables the process of developing a conceptual framework as shown in Fig. 3. It provides a
linkage of independent variable which is deemed to influence the dependent variable.
Parameters used for measuring the independent and dependent variables were adopted
from the existing literature which established their reliability as they have already been
tested in the prior research. Based upon the critical literature review, independent varia-
bles were identified that had been reported to impact the operational carbon footprint for
the built environment. However, the selection of these independent variables was achieved
through All Possible Regression method. Kleinbaum et al. (2013) appraised wherever prac-
tical, preference is given to this method because it guarantees to achieve the optimum when
many of the choices available. Independent variables, physical attributes of built facilities,
identified through a critical literature review which qualified the method were selected.
Table 5 shows the individual independent and dependent variables included in this study.

3.4 Regression

Various methods have been adopted for the assessment and analysis of energy con-
sumption patterns of buildings. Batlle et al. (2020) classified these into four categories:
energy audit methods, statistical regression methods, artificial neural networks/deep
learning, and lastly, support vector mechanics. The current work adopted the statisti-
cal regression method. The statistical modeling technique of regression was applied to
explore the relationship between different variables. Equation  2 defines the standard

Parameter 1

Housing Unit Parameter 2 Operational Carbon

Dependent Variables

Parameter n

Independent Variables
(Physical Parameters)

Fig. 3  Conceptual framework for the study

13
 8450 S. S. S. Gardezi et al.

Table 5  Summary of Study Variables

Variables Parameter Source

Independent Area Gardezi and Shafiq (2019), Gardezi et al. (2016)

Volume Gardezi and Shafiq (2019), Gardezi et al. (2016)
Materials Crawford (2011), Gardezi et al. (2016)
Power rating Blom et al. (2010a, 2010b), Crawford (2011),
Gardezi and Shafiq (2019), Wu et al. (2012)
Dependent Operational carbon footprint Gardezi and Shafiq (2019), Hacker et al. (2008),
Roh and Tae (2016), Rosselló-Batle et al.
(2010)

format for simple regression of each relationship of independent variables, and Eq.  3
observed the combined effect of multi-variables on the response.
Yn = 𝛽k Xk + 𝜀 (2)

Yn = 𝛼 + 𝛽1 X1 + 𝛽2 X2 + … + 𝛽k Xk + 𝜀 (3)
whereas Y = operational carbon footprint (dependent variable), Xk = independent variables,
α = intercept, n = design life opted (years), β = coefficient, ε = standard error.

4 Results and discussion

Operational ­CO2 contributions for the opted design life are presented in Fig.  4. The
study highlighted that the average operational footprint contributions remained more
than 50 tons-CO2 in each case of design life adopted. For a design life of 50 years, the
contribution range varied from 49 to 62 tons-CO2, 60 to 74 tons-CO2 for 60 years, and
lastly for 70 years, the range was 68 to 86 tons-CO2.

Fig. 4  Operational carbon footprint emissions during opted design life for housing units

13
Relational pre‑impact assessment of conventional housing… 8451

Table 6  Contribution limits and Description Average percentage Standard

ranking of operational carbon deviation
footprint sources
Lighting 6.17 0.26
Air conditioning 36.72 4.57
Refrigeration 47.27 4.81
Cleaning 7.06 1.39
Cooking 2.79 0.38

Lighting Air Conditioning Refrigeration Cleaning Cooking

H # 05

H # 04
Housing units

H # 03

H # 02

H # 01

- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% age contributions

Fig. 5  Contribution trend of carbon footprint sources for housing units

On average, the housing projects contributed approximately 56, 67, and 79 tons of
­CO2 with a standard deviation of 5.7, 6.8, and 7.9 tons of ­CO2 for the three design life
years, respectively. Overall, the contribution range, based upon the type of source, is
given in Table 6.
Refrigeration and air conditioning were the top two consumers of electricity and con-
tributors to the operational carbon footprint followed by cleaning and lighting, respec-
tively. The top two types of equipment contributed on average approximately 84% of the
total operational carbon footprint. Figure  5 depicts the graphical representation of the
contribution trend for each of the sources.
The study highlighted a significant impact on carbon footprint content with the
change in physical characteristics of the facilities. The phenomenon leads to further
exploration of:

(a) Contribution trends of identified sources

(b) Inter-effect of parameters with operational carbon as the dependent variable

From the investigation of carbon footprint trend of individual resources of emissions,

cleaning observed an excellent positive relationship with area, whereas contributions
from other sources do not highlight a prominent effect as presented in Fig. 6. The agree-
ment between the carbon impact and cleaning was observed to be logical because, with
the increase in area, the scope of cleaning would also increase, thus leading to an indi-
rect increment in emission content.

13
 8452 S. S. S. Gardezi et al.

Operational carbon footprint contribtuions (%age)

60
Lighting Air Conditioning Refrigeration Cleaning Cooking

50
R² = 0.77

40

R² = 0.35
30

20

R² = 0.62
10
R² = 0.00
R² = 0.48
0
1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
Area (sft)

Fig. 6  Operational carbon (kg-CO2) trend of individual sources with area

Similarly, the volumetric capacity of the facilities was observed to cause a direct effect
on the energy consumption patterns with an indirect impact on operational carbon foot-
print. The coefficient of determination, R2, signified a strong relation with the positive
trend of volume with environmental emission. A variation of volume capacity achieved
a resultant 26% in carbon content as shown in Fig.  7. Air conditioning and refrigeration
depicted a significant impact on carbon content. The rising trend of operational ­CO2 also
agrees with the impact of the cooling load, which varies directly with volume, thus exert-
ing more pressure for higher energy requirements to maintain a comfort level. However,
Operational carbon footprint contribtuions (%age)

60
Lighting Air Conditioning Refrigeration Cleaning Cooking

50
R² = 0.96

40
R² = 0.84
30

20

R² = 0.14
10 R² = 0.05 R² = 0.22

0
25,000 35,000 45,000 55,000 65,000 75,000 85,000
Volume(cft)

Fig. 7  The relationship between operational carbon (kg-CO2) and volume

13
Relational pre‑impact assessment of conventional housing… 8453

other sources such as lighting, air conditioning, and cooking do not observe any significant
impact of volume on their contributions.
Based on previous research studies, in conventional constructions, the materials have
been reported as significant contributors to embodied carbon footprint emissions. However,
the role of materials in operational carbon footprint has been limited to environmental con-
trol for comfort level and still requires to be explored. This effect has also been scrutinized,
and the fragile effect of materials was observed for the operation C ­ O2, Fig. 8.
In current design practices, efficient energy consumptions are one of the critical param-
eters for sustainable construction and operation of the building throughout the service life
of the facility. So in this case, power rating can be an important indicator in utilization pat-
terns and carbon footprint parameters. However, there is still a lack of research exploring
the relationship between the two variables for conventional tropical housing. The power
rating of the facility has been inclusive of each of the equipment to be operated in the
building; Fig. 9a–c presents the relational trend of operational carbon footprint contribu-
tions with and parameters of the area, volume and power rating of facilities, respectively.
The result achieved for the interrelation between dependent and independent variables
elaborated an increase in the area, increasing the corresponding carbon footprint. A good
statistical relationship (R2 > 0.70) existed among the dependent (carbon footprint) and inde-
pendent variable (area). However, in the case of carbon footprint per unit area (kg-CO2/sft),
the respective value of the functional unit reduced as the area increased. A linear trend with
a significant value was obtained. On average, the operational carbon footprint per unit area
was 21.50 with a standard deviation of 5.07  kg-CO2/sft, 25.50 with 6.10, and 30.0 with
7.10, respectively, for three cases. The study also highlighted that the rate of reduction in
the functional unit was directly proportional to the area of housing projects. For an increase
in area from 1625 to 3400 ­ft2, the value of the functional unit reduced by 67% for the hous-
ing projects in this phase. In other words, for every 10% increase in the area, the value of
operational carbon footprint per unit area decreases by almost 3.2%. More of the area lower
was the value of the functional unit.
In the case of the impact of power rating on carbon footprint, a positive relationship
with a significant coefficient of determination (R2 > 0.90) was achieved. Similarly, volume
and power rating also witnessed a strong relationship. However, the area of housing was

100,000
Operational Carbon footprint (kg-CO2)

80,000
R² = 0.37

60,000

40,000

20,000
50yrs 60 yrs 70 yrs
Linear (50yrs ) Linear (60 yrs) Linear (70 yrs)

-
100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000
Materials (kg)

Fig. 8  A relationship between operational carbon and material consumption

13
 8454 S. S. S. Gardezi et al.

(a)
100,000
Operational Carbon footprint (kg-CO2)

80,000
R² = 0.71

60,000

40,000

20,000
50yrs 60 yrs 70 yrs
Linear (50yrs ) Linear (60 yrs) Linear (70 yrs)
-
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Area (sft)

(b)
100,000
Operational Carbon footprint (kg-CO2)

80,000
R² = 0.97

60,000

40,000

20,000
50yrs 60 yrs 70 yrs
Linear (50yrs ) Linear (60 yrs) Linear (70 yrs)
-
1,000 11,000 21,000 31,000 41,000 51,000 61,000 71,000 81,000 91,000

Volume (cft)

(c)
100,000
Operational Carbon footprint (kg-CO2)

80,000
R² = 0.94

60,000

40,000

20,000
50yrs 60 yrs 70 yrs
Linear (50yrs ) Linear (60 yrs) Linear (70 yrs)
-
11,000 11,500 12,000 12,500 13,000 13,500

Power rating (kwh)

Fig. 9  Regression statistics for variables

13
Relational pre‑impact assessment of conventional housing… 8455

(d)
13,500
Power Rating Linear (Power Rating)

13,000
Power rating (kwh)

12,500 R² = 0.92

12,000

11,500

11,000
1,500 11,500 21,500 31,500 41,500 51,500 61,500 71,500 81,500 91,500

Voume (cft)

(e) 13,500
Power Rating Linear (Power Rating)
13,000

12,500
Power rating (kwh)

12,000
R² = 0.48

11,500

11,000

10,500
1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Area (sft)

Fig. 9  (continued)

not observed to have a resilient impact on power ratings. In other words, the area does not
govern the power rating decision. Table 7 provides a summary of simple regression analy-
sis for the dependent and explanatory variable cases adopted in the study.
By considering the outcome of one-to-one relationships among various parameters, the
combined effects were also investigated. Based on the relationship, the combined effect of
area and volume on ­CO2 also identified as a linear pattern as shown in Fig. 10a. As the area
and volume increase, there was a direct increase in the resulting carbon footprint. A similar
trend was observed in the case of a combination of area and power rating, Fig. 10b. How-
ever, the combined impact of area and material, Fig. 9c, does not reflect a linear trend but
a concave parabolic pattern. In this case, due to non-significant relation between two vari-
ables, no significant change in ­CO2 was observed for the “material” axis as which remained
almost constant. However, an increasing trend was only observed along the “Area” axis.
The parameters of materials and power rating observed the same pattern in a combi-
nation of volume with an increasing trend on the volume axis, Fig.  10d, e. Lastly, the

13
 8456 S. S. S. Gardezi et al.

Table 7  Simple regression statistics for variables

Variable description
Dependent (Yn) Independent (Xn) Design life (n) β coefficient ε Coefficient of
determination

CO2 Area 50 7.09 36,594 0.71

60 8.50 43,912
70 9.92 51,231
CO2 Volume 50 0.28 40,634 0.97
60 0.33 48,761
70 0.39 56,888
CO2 Materials 0.37
CO2 Power rating 50 6.64 (23,882) 0.94
60 7.97 (28,659)
70 9.30 (33,435)
Power rating Volume 0.04 9,848 0.92
Power rating Area 0.48

effect of power rating and materials depicts a strong combined effect of both variables
with an increasing linear pattern, Fig. 10f. Furthermore, to observe the effect of selected
variables, the multivariable regression method was adopted. The ­CO2 has been adopted
as a dependent variable which the other parameters as independent variables or regres-
sors. The “All possible regression” method has been used to select the independent vari-
able to be included in the regression model. The statistical evaluation of these variables
is detailed in Table 8.
For the cases including a combination of two dependent variables, each combina-
tion observed a good value of the coefficient of determination R2 and significance level
except area and material. The level of significance, p value, for the two variables was
greater than 0.05. This indicates that the resulting model for carbon footprint based on
these variables was not efficient and reliable. Similarly, the combination of three inde-
pendent variables also achieved a good value of R2. However, only a single case-based
upon area, volume, and power rating were able to meet the statistical significance level.
The value of 0.01 < 0.05 was achieved. In the case of four variables, the results remained
unable to achieve the significance level. Therefore, this case does not present a valid
model to assess operational ­CO2 based on these variables. The output of multivariable
regression concluded that the physical parameters of the area, volume, and power rating
present the best possible statistical model to assess and describe the changing trends
of operational carbon footprint. Therefore, Eq. 4 concludes the best available model to
predict the operational carbon footprint based upon the physical parameters of the built
facility, i.e.,
LCCO2 = (−)6191.56 + 2.50 (Area) + 0.086 (Volume) + 6.073 (Power rating) (4)
Equation (4) achieved as a result of the multiple regression techniques observed a sig-
nificant value of 0.99 for coefficient of determination (R2) which presented a perfect line of
data fitness. The main concern remained, at this stage, the error in the predicting capacity.
To justify, the percentage error has been calculated for the actual value achieved and pre-
dicted values (using Eq. 4) of the operational carbon footprint, the table below. The results

13
Relational pre‑impact assessment of conventional housing… 8457

(a) (b)

95000

86250
CARBON FOOTPRINT (Kg-CO2)

77500

68750

60000

310000 3500

283000
3000
256000
2500
229000
2000
B: Materials (Kg) 202000 A: Area (Sft)
175000 1500

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Fig. 10  Surface response of dependent variables on carbon footprint

13
 8458 S. S. S. Gardezi et al.

Table 8  Multivariable regression statistics

Description of independent variables Regression statistics
(X1) (X2) (X3) (X4) R2 p value Model

Area Volume 0.975 0.04 56,444.04 + 0.611 (X1) + 0.364 (X2)

Area Power rating 0.99 0.001 (−) 24,605.36 + 3.176 (X1) + 7.855 (X3)
Area Material 0.646 0.211 46,704.11 + 6.405 (X1) + 0.062 (X4)
Volume Power rating 0.98 0.003 27,885.88 + 0.260 (X2) + 2.99 (X3)
Volume Material 0.974 0.004 56,720.75 + 0.369 (X2) + 0.004 (X4)
Power rating Material 0.968 0.006 (−) 27,034.97 + 8.251 (X3) + 0.025 (X4)
Area Volume Power rating 0.99 0.013 (−) 6,191.56 + 2.50 (X1) + 0.086 (X2) + 6.073
(X3)
Area Volume Material 0.97 0.047 56,045.04 + 0.562 (X1) + 0.359 (X2) + 0.003 (X4)
Volume Power rating Material 0.98 0.098 19,770.03 + 0.215 (X2) + 3.648 (X3) + 0.011 (X4)
Area Volume Power rating Material 0.99 0.115 (−) 16,103.74 + 2.56 (X1) + 0.032 (X2) + 6.885
(X3) + 0.012 (X4)

observed that the error ranged from (−)2. 6 to ( +)3.9 which remains within the acceptable
limits for prediction studies, Table 9.

5 Conclusion and recommendation

The operational C­ O2 for housing units with different types of conventional housing con-
struction from a typical tropical climate has been assessed in the current study. The influ-
ence of physical attributes (area, volume, materials, and power rating) on carbon footprint
contributions from the operational phase was investigated. The opted case studies were
developed in the virtual 3D environment using building information modeling (BIM). Stat-
ically technique of regression guided to investigate and capture the impact of independent
variables on the environment. The findings of the study conclude that:

• The average operational footprint contribution remained more than 60 tons-CO2 in

each case of design life. Refrigeration and air conditioning were the top two signifi-

Table 9  Error statistics of actual Description Operational carbon Percentage error

versus predicted values footprint (kg-CO2)
Actual Predicted

H–01 67,554.71 69,332.11 (2.63)

H–02 76,802.87 75,488.40 1.71
H–03 76,517.51 74,483.66 2.66
H–04 89,828.21 86,303.90 3.92
H–05 84,015.70 81,105.85 3.46
Mean percentage error 1.82

13
Relational pre‑impact assessment of conventional housing… 8459

cant consumers of electricity and contributors with a share of more than 80% in total
operational carbon footprint in each of the cases.
• An individual impact assessment was performed by application for simple regres-
sion, whereas the combined effect of these parameters has also been explored adopt-
ing multivariable regression methodology. The assessment of physical parameters
highlighted a mixed trend of effects on the environmental aspect of carbon footprint.
The three variables of the area, volume, and power rating observed a significant pos-
itive linear impact (R2 > 0.70), whereas the construction materials depicted a very
weak relation with carbon footprint content (R2 < 0.70).
• A variation of 2.1 times in the area and 2.55 times in volume highlighted an average
increase of 26% in the operational carbon footprint for the housing units. Similarly,
the increasing power ratings directly affected the emission content with a positive
linear trend. The power rating factor has been observed to be affected by the volu-
metric parameter with a weak impact on the area of the facility. However, no sig-
nificant relationship was observed between the carbon footprint and the quantity of
primary construction materials utilized.

The result of the study highlights that the physical features of a construction facility
played a vital role in operational carbon footprint management throughout the design
life. The correlational study between the physical parameters and operational carbon
footprint has been able to explore the extent of the carbon footprint for each physical
variable which was not known. Thus, the research identified the potential of variables
having a stronger or weak environmental impact. A proper assessment of different alter-
natives at the design stage would not only help to highlight the relationship between
different physical features but also guide in environmentally conscious and sustainable
decision making. This will also guide or help future researchers and exceptionally the
professional to concentrate more on factors that have a strong relation thus saving their
time and resources.
The theory and practices of the sustainable built environment apply to the differ-
ent categories of urban projects such as housing, building, roads and highways, public
transportation. Although each of the types has its distinct characteristics, scope, and
project triple bottom line constraints for achieving a sustainable environment. Yet, they
have generic design features and priorities concerning their built environment goals.
The owners of built environment projects are its self a broad category and may further
be classified into public and private sector entities. In the context of the current study, it
is observed that the physical parameters of the built environment observed a strong rela-
tionship with the resulting carbon footprint emission. The designed attributes of area,
volume, and power ratings are the prime concerns that need to be critically reviewed.
So, these variables must also be kept in mind while finalizing various built environment
facilities to achieve a less carbon-intensive operational phase of the facility. This would
also help to manage the carbon sink from the building sector for achieving sustainable
developments. Hence, the research implications are relevant and pertinent to a diversi-
fied range of built environment projects in developing countries. The study is envisaged
to provide a guideline to stakeholders in effective operational carbon footprint assess-
ments to achieve sustainable endeavors in the housing sector.

Acknowledgements  The authors acknowledge the support of CUST, Islamabad Pakistan and UTP, Malay-
sia and UMP Malaysia for successful completion of this study. The authors would also like to thank the
organizations, industrial practitioners who have provided their valuable feedback in this research.

13
 8460 S. S. S. Gardezi et al.

Funding  Research study was supported by Ministry of Education (Higher Education Department), Malay-
sia under MyRA Incentive Grant (0153AB-J11) for Smart Integrated Low Carbon. Infrastructure Model
Program.

Data availability statement  Some or all data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations 
Conflict of interest  The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
14040, I. (2006). 14040: Environmental management–life cycle assessment–principles and framework.
London: British Standards Institution
Agency, I. E. (2015). ­CO2 Emissions from Fuel Consumptions.
Allacker, K., Castellani, V., Baldinelli, G., Bianchi, F., Baldassarri, C., & Sala, S. (2019). Energy simu-
lation and LCA for macro-scale analysis of eco-innovations in the housing stock. The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(6), 989–1008.
Allouhi, A., El Fouih, Y., Kousksou, T., Jamil, A., Zeraouli, Y., & Mourad, Y. (2015). Energy consump-
tion and efficiency in buildings: Current status and future trends. Journal of Cleaner Production,
109, 118–130. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2015.​05.​139
Alyami, S. H., & Rezgui, Y. (2012). Sustainable building assessment tool development approach. Sus-
tainable Cities and Society, 5, 52–62.
Asdrubali, F., Baldassarri, C., & Fthenakis, V. (2013). Life cycle analysis in the construction sector:
Guiding the optimization of conventional Italian buildings. Energy and Buildings, 64, 73–89.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enbui​ld.​2013.​04.​018
Basbagill, J., Flager, F., Lepech, M., & Fischer, M. (2013). Application of life-cycle assessment to early
stage building design for reduced embodied environmental impacts. Building and Environment, 60,
81–92. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​build​env.​2012.​11.​009
Batlle, E. A. O., Palacio, J. C. E., Lora, E. E. S., Reyes, A. M. M., Moreno, M. M., & Morejón, M. B.
(2020). A methodology to estimate baseline energy use and quantify savings in electrical energy
consumption in higher education institution buildings: Case study, Federal University of Itajubá
(UNIFEI). Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 118551.
Blom, I., Itard, L., & Meijer, A. (2010a). Environmental impact of dwellings in use: Maintenance of
façade components. Building and Environment, 45(11), 2526–2538.
Blom, I., Itard, L., & Meijer, A. (2010b). LCA-based environmental assessment of the use and mainte-
nance of heating and ventilation systems in Dutch dwellings. Building and Environment, 45(11),
2362–2372.
Chang, Y., Ries, R. J., & Lei, S. (2012). The embodied energy and emissions of a high-rise education build-
ing: A quantification using process-based hybrid life cycle inventory model. Energy and Buildings, 55,
790–798. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enbui​ld.​2012.​10.​019
Chau, C., Hui, W., Ng, W., & Powell, G. (2012). Assessment of ­CO2 emissions reduction in high-rise con-
crete office buildings using different material use options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 61,
22–34.
Commission, E. (2014). Malaysia energy statistics handbook. Energy Commission.
Crawford, R. H. (2011). Towards a comprehensive approach to zero-emissions housing. Architectural Sci-
ence Review, 54(4), 277–284.
Cuéllar-Franca, R. M., & Azapagic, A. (2012). Environmental impacts of the UK residential sector: Life
cycle assessment of houses. Building and Environment, 54, 86–99. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​build​env.​
2012.​02.​005
Dahlstrøm, O., Sørnes, K., Eriksen, S. T., & Hertwich, E. G. (2012). Life cycle assessment of a single-
family residence built to either conventional-or passive house standard. Energy and Buildings, 54,
470–479.
Danatzko, J. M., & Sezen, H. (2011). Sustainable structural design methodologies. Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction, 16(4), 186–190.

13
Relational pre‑impact assessment of conventional housing… 8461

Dixit, M. K., Fernández-Solís, J. L., Lavy, S., & Culp, C. H. (2012). Need for an embodied energy meas-
urement protocol for buildings: A review paper. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6),
3730–3743. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2012.​03.​021
Dodoo, A., Gustavsson, L., & Sathre, R. (2010). Life cycle primary energy implication of retrofitting a
wood-framed apartment building to passive house standard. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
54(12), 1152–1160.
Dodoo, A., Gustavsson, L., & Sathre, R. (2014). Lifecycle carbon implications of conventional and low-
energy multi-storey timber building systems. Energy and Buildings, 82, 194–210.
Eichner, M., & Elsharawy, H. (2020). Life cycle assessment (LCA) based concept design method for poten-
tial zero emission residential building. Paper presented at the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Envi-
ronmental Science.
Esin, T., & Yüksek, İ. (2013). Sustainable resource utilisation in the production of building materials. Inter-
national Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 4(2), 141–145.
Evangelista, P. P., Kiperstok, A., Torres, E. A., & Gonçalves, J. P. (2018). Environmental performance anal-
ysis of residential buildings in Brazil using life cycle assessment (LCA). Construction and Building
Materials, 169, 748–761.
Franzoni, E. (2011). Materials selection for green buildings: Which tools for engineers and architects? Pro-
cedia Engineering, 21, 883–890.
Gardezi, S., & Shafiq, N. (2019). Operational carbon footprint prediction model for conventional tropical
housing: A Malaysian prospective. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology,
16(12), 7817–7826.
Gardezi, S. S. S., Shafiq, N., Zawawi, N. A. W. A., Khamidi, M. F., & Farhan, S. A. (2016). A multivariable
regression tool for embodied carbon footprint prediction in housing habitat. Habitat International, 53,
292–300. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​habit​atint.​2015.​11.​005
Goggins, J., Keane, T., & Kelly, A. (2010). The assessment of embodied energy in typical reinforced con-
crete building structures in Ireland. Energy and Buildings, 42(5), 735–744. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
enbui​ld.​2009.​11.​013
Gungor, S., Cetin, M., & Adiguzel, F. (2021). Calculation of comfortable thermal conditions for Mersin
urban city planning in Turkey. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 14(4), 515–522.
Gustavsson, L., Joelsson, A., & Sathre, R. (2010). Life cycle primary energy use and carbon emission of an
eight-storey wood-framed apartment building. Energy and Buildings, 42(2), 230–242. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​enbui​ld.​2009.​08.​018
Hacker, J. N., De Saulles, T. P., Minson, A. J., & Holmes, M. J. (2008). Embodied and operational car-
bon dioxide emissions from housing: A case study on the effects of thermal mass and climate change.
Energy and Buildings, 40(3), 375–384.
Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4),
986–1014.
Hart, S. L., & Dowell, G. (2011). Invited editorial: A natural-resource-based view of the firm: Fifteen years
after. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1464–1479.
Hong, T., Koo, C., & Kim, H. (2012). A decision support model for improving a multi-family housing com-
plex based on CO2 emission from electricity consumption. Journal of Environmental Management,
112, 67–78.
Huang, T., Shi, F., Tanikawa, H., Fei, J., & Han, J. (2013). Materials demand and environmental impact of
buildings construction and demolition in China based on dynamic material flow analysis. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 72, 91–101.
Ibn-Mohammed, T., Greenough, R., Taylor, S., Ozawa-Meida, L., & Acquaye, A. (2013). Operational ver-
sus embodied emissions in buildings—A review of current trends. Energy and Buildings, 66, 232–245.
Ji, C., Hong, T., Jeong, K., Kim, J., Koo, C., Lee, M., Han, S., & Kang, Y. (2020). Embodied and Opera-
tional CO 2 Emissions of the Elementary School Buildings in Different Climate Zones. KSCE Journal
of Civil Engineering, 24(4), 1037.
Kim, S.-C., Shin, H.-I., & Ahn, J. (2020). Energy performance analysis of airport terminal buildings by use
of architectural, operational information and benchmark metrics. Journal of Air Transport Manage-
ment, 83, 101762.
Kim, Y.-W., & Bae, J. (2010). Assessing the environmental impacts of a lean supply system: Case study of
high-rise condominium construction in Korea. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 16(4), 144–150.
Lai, J., & Lu, M. (2019). Analysis and benchmarking of carbon emissions of commercial buildings. Energy
and Buildings, 199, 445–454.
Lee, S.-K., Teng, M.-C., Fan, K.-S., Yang, K.-H., & Horng, R. S. (2011). Application of an energy manage-
ment system in combination with FMCS to high energy consuming IT industries of Taiwan. Energy
Conversion and Management, 52(8–9), 3060–3070.

13
 8462 S. S. S. Gardezi et al.

Li, H., & Wei, Y.-M. (2015). Is it possible for China to reduce its total CO2 emissions? Energy, 83,
438–446.
Li, D. Z., Chen, H. X., Hui, E. C. M., Zhang, J. B., & Li, Q. M. (2013). A methodology for estimating
the life-cycle carbon efficiency of a residential building. Building and Environment, 59, 448–455.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​build​env.​2012.​09.​012.
Lin, M., Afshari, A., & Azar, E. (2018). A data-driven analysis of building energy use with emphasis
on operation and maintenance: A case study from the UAE. Journal of Cleaner Production, 192,
169–178.
Ma, H., Du, N., Yu, S., Lu, W., Zhang, Z., Deng, N., & Li, C. (2017). Analysis of typical public building
energy consumption in northern China. Energy and Buildings, 136, 139–150.
Mithraratne, N., & Vale, B. (2004). Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses. Building and
Environment, 39(4), 483–492. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​build​env.​2003.​09.​008
Monahan, J., & Powell, J. C. (2011). An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern methods of
construction in housing: A case study using a lifecycle assessment framework. Energy and Build-
ings, 43(1), 179–188. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enbui​ld.​2010.​09.​005
Mourão, J., Gomes, R., Matias, L., & Niza, S. (2019). Combining embodied and operational energy in
buildings refurbishment assessment. Energy and Buildings, 197, 34–46.
Ortiz-Rodríguez, O., Castells, F., & Sonnemann, G. (2010). Life cycle assessment of two dwellings: One
in Spain, a developed country, and one in Colombia, a country under development. Science of the
Total Environment, 408(12), 2435–2443.
Oyarzo, J., & Peuportier, B. (2014). Life cycle assessment model applied to housing in Chile. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 69, 109–116.
Papachristos, G., Jain, N., Burman, E., Zimmermann, N., Mumovic, D., Davies, M., & Edkins, A.
(2020). Low carbon building performance in the construction industry: A multi-method approach
of project management operations and building energy use applied in a UK public office building.
Energy and Buildings, 206, 109609.
Parkin, A., Herrera, M., & Coley, D. A. (2020). Net-zero buildings: when carbon and energy metrics
diverge. Buildings and Cities, 1(1).
Pekkan, O. I., Kurkcuoglu, M. A. S., Cabuk, S. N., Aksoy, T., Yilmazel, B., Kucukpehlivan, T., Dabanli,
A., Cabuk, A., & Cetin, M. (2021). Assessing the effects of wind farms on soil organic carbon.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(14), 18216–18233.
Peuportier, B. L. P. (2001). Life cycle assessment applied to the comparative evaluation of single fam-
ily houses in the French context. Energy and Buildings, 33(5), 443–450. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
S0378-​7788(00)​00101-8
Pons, O., & Wadel, G. (2011). Environmental impacts of prefabricated school buildings in Catalonia.
Habitat International, 35(4), 553–563.
Proietti, S., Sdringola, P., Desideri, U., Zepparelli, F., Masciarelli, F., & Castellani, F. (2013). Life Cycle
Assessment of a passive house in a seismic temperate zone. Energy and Buildings, 64, 463–472.
Rajagopalan, N., Bilec, M. M., & Landis, A. E. (2012). Life cycle assessment evaluation of green prod-
uct labelingsystems for residential construction. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
17(6), 753–763.
Ramesh, T., Prakash, R., & Shukla, K. K. (2010). Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview.
Energy and Buildings, 42(10), 1592–1600. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enbui​ld.​2010.​05.​007
Rauf, A., & Crawford, R. H. (2015). Building service life and its effect on the life cycle embodied energy
of buildings. Energy, 79, 140–148. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​energy.​2014.​10.​093
Roh, S., & Tae, S. (2016). Building simplified life cycle CO2 emissions assessment tool (B-SCAT) to
support low-carbon building design in South Korea. Sustainability, 8(6), 567.
Roh, S., Tae, S., & Shin, S. (2014). Development of building materials embodied greenhouse gases
assessment criteria and system (BEGAS) in the newly revised Korea Green Building Certification
System (G-SEED). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 35, 410–421.
Rosselló-Batle, B., Moià, A., Cladera, A., & Martínez, V. (2010). Energy use, CO2 emissions and waste
throughout the life cycle of a sample of hotels in the Balearic Islands. Energy and Buildings, 42(4),
547–558.
Rossi, B., Marique, A.-F., Glaumann, M., & Reiter, S. (2012). Life-cycle assessment of residential build-
ings in three different European locations, basic tool. Building and Environment, 51, 395–401.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​build​env.​2011.​11.​017
Roufechaei, K. M., Bakar, A. H. A., & Tabassi, A. A. (2014). Energy-efficient design for sustainable
housing development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 380–388.
Sartori, I., & Hestnes, A. G. (2007). Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings:
A review article. Energy and Buildings, 39(3), 249–257. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enbui​ld.​2006.​07.​001

13
Relational pre‑impact assessment of conventional housing… 8463

Scheuer, C., Keoleian, G. A., & Reppe, P. (2003). Life cycle energy and environmental performance of
a new university building: Modeling challenges and design implications. Energy and Buildings,
35(10), 1049–1064. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0378-​7788(03)​00066-5
Sharma, A., Saxena, A., Sethi, M., & Shree, V. (2011). Life cycle assessment of buildings: A review. Renew-
able and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(1), 871–875.
Thormark, C. (2002). A low energy building in a life cycle—Its embodied energy, energy need for operation
and recycling potential. Building and Environment, 37(4), 429–435. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0360-​
1323(01)​00033-6
Trovato, M. R., Nocera, F., & Giuffrida, S. (2020). Life-cycle assessment and monetary measurements for
the carbon footprint reduction of public buildings. Sustainability, 12(8), 3460.
Wu, H. J., Yuan, Z. W., Zhang, L., & Bi, J. (2012). Life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emission of an
office building in China. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(2), 105–118.
Yan, Zhang, H., Meng, J., Long, Y., Zhou, X., Li, Z., Wang, Y., & Liang, Y. (2019). Carbon footprint in
building distributed energy system: An optimization-based feasibility analysis for potential emission
reduction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 239, 117990.
Yatim, P., Mamat, M.-N., Mohamad-Zailani, S. H., & Ramlee, S. (2016). Energy policy shifts towards sus-
tainable energy future for Malaysia. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 18(6), 1685–1695.

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13