Building and Environment 240 (2023) 110432

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

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

Modular construction’s capacity to reduce embodied carbon emissions in

California’s housing sector
Fiona Greer a, b, *, Arpad Horvath a
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA
b
Center for the Built Environment, University of California, Berkeley, USA

A B S T R A C T

Demand for new housing construction must be balanced with minimizing embodied greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from building materials, logistical operations,
and construction activities. This study examines the potential embodied GHG benefits that an innovative housing production method, factory-built modular con­
struction, might have in meeting the multifamily housing needs, with California as a case study. A model is developed to quantify the embodied GHG emissions from
materials, transportation, and construction for representative modular housing projects, contrasting results to scenarios where housing is constructed with con­
ventional methods. Results are scaled from single building prototypes to meeting housing demand for lower income residents in California, representing 1.1 million
housing units in all 58 of the state’s counties. Statewide, compared to all housing units being stick-built, most modular types achieve emission reductions of 2–22%,
with potential benefits depending upon structural framing material and factory location. A parametric sensitivity analysis reveals additional key modeling variables:
module size and capacity of the module delivery vehicle. A Monte Carlo analysis is conducted for each county, comparing a random allocation of modular types from
all factory locations to conventionally constructed housing. Counties farthest away from module factories experience GHG emission gains, while all other counties
experience emission benefits of 1–14% (removing one of the modular types increases benefits to 4–20% for all counties). While the results are California-specific, the
modeling framework is applicable to any location and relevant for regions assessing the embodied carbon impacts of rapid housing construction methods.

1. Introduction
The building sector, including construction and operation, accounts
for almost 40% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [1]. Buildings
have both embodied and operational GHG emissions. Operational
emissions come from energy sources used in operating the building.
Embodied emissions come from materials, construction, transportation,
maintenance, and end-of-life activities. As buildings are beginning to
emit fewer operational GHG emissions due to decarbonized energy
supplies and energy efficient designs, embodied emissions become a
much more significant portion of the building sector’s carbon footprint
[2–5]. Since upfront embodied GHG emissions are released at the outset
of the building’s construction, coupled with the enormous near-term
demand for new and renovated building construction, stakeholders
must seriously consider solutions that minimize the embodied GHG
emissions of buildings [1].
California, the fifth largest economy in the world and home to 39
million people [6,7], faces two crises simultaneously: the immediate and
near-threats posed by climate change and the extreme shortage of resi­
dential housing. According to recent estimates, more than 2.5 million
housing units should be planned to be built to meet the housing demand
in each of the state’s counties by 2030 [8]. Any solution aimed at
addressing the housing shortages that California faces must also account
for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Buildings account for a quarter of
the state’s GHG emissions [9], but that value is an undercount as it does
not include the embodied emissions from materials and construction
activities.
This study aims to determine if an innovative housing production
method, factory-built modules, might yield potential GHG benefits while
also meeting the state’s housing needs. The fundamental difference
between modular and conventionally constructed buildings is in the
manner of construction. In the life-cycle phases in a building project,
which are outlined in Fig. 1 in the Supporting Information (S.I.), raw
materials for the building are extracted and processed (A1-A3), building
materials are transported from production facilities to site and con­
structed into a building (A4-A5), energy and materials are used to
operate and maintain (B1–B7), and decommission (C1–C6) the building
once it has reached its end of life (EOL). Some of the building materials
can enter back into circulation after the building’s service life (D). The
difference in life-cycle steps between modular and conventional site-
built construction is outlined in Fig. 1. With traditional construction,
building materials are delivered from a material production or storage

* Corresponding author. 410 McLaughlin Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA.

E-mail addresses: fionagreer@berkeley.edu (F. Greer), horvath@ce.berkeley.edu (A. Horvath).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110432
Received 30 March 2023; Received in revised form 10 May 2023; Accepted 17 May 2023
Available online 24 May 2023
0360-1323/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
F. Greer and A. Horvath
Fig. 1. Differences in life-cycle phases between prefabricated (modular)
buildings and traditionally constructed buildings.
facility directly to the site where the building is constructed from the
ground up. In modular construction, which is a subset of prefabricated
construction, self-contained building units are fabricated at an off-site
facility and then installed at the construction site. On-site installation
practices for prefabricated construction depend upon the level of pre­
fabrication of building components, which range from elements (e.g.,
precast concrete columns) and assemblies (e.g., panelized wall systems)
to entire modules with exterior/interior walls, roofs, floors, and me­
chanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems. The most extensive
level of prefabrication is modular construction. Adopting the terminol­
ogy defined in Gibb 2001 [10], modular construction refers to the
fabrication, delivery, and installation of “pre-assembled volumetric
units” at a site. The structural framing, roofing, exterior facades, interior
partitions, finishes, and fixtures are all assembled into self-contained
volumetric modules in a factory setting and shipped to site to be inter­
locked with other modules.
This study examines the potential embodied GHG (carbon) benefits
that an innovative housing production method, factory-built modules,
might have in meeting the state’s housing needs. While the results and
discussion are California-specific, the methods and modeling framework
are applicable to any location. A GHG comparison of different housing
types built with factory-made modules relative to conventional, on-site
construction methods is presented. Emissions are scaled from proto­
typical residential building case studies to the future stock of multi-
family housing in California to gain a comprehensive understanding of
potential savings from modular construction.
1.1. Literature review on modular housing
1.1.1. Life-cycle assessment studies on modular housing
Prior studies have asserted that modular construction can yield
environmental benefits relative to conventional construction methods,
but those potential benefits need to be quantitatively assessed [11].
Modular projects should be assessed using a range of economic, envi­
ronmental, and social criteria so that stakeholders (e.g., contractors,
developers, regulatory agencies) can select the optimal construction
method for a project [12]. Construction stakeholders ranked potentially
relevant environmental indices for a sustainable modular building
assessment framework: operational energy efficiency ranked highest,
suggesting interest about differences between modular and traditional
building envelopes [12]. Embodied energy and GHG emissions ranked in
the middle among the twelve environmental indices, suggesting that
stakeholders might not view those factors as a critical difference be­
tween modular and traditional buildings.
One study conducted a literature review of 27 case studies that uti­
lized life-cycle assessment (LCA) and found a wide range of embodied
(105–864 kg CO2 per m2) and operational (11–76 kg CO2 per m2)
emissions from prefabricated buildings [13]. The wide range is in part
attributable to variability in study assumptions and uncertainties in case
2
Building and Environment 240 (2023) 110432
study building type, material selection, service life, geographic bound­
ary, emission source, and amount of prefabricated material. On average,
the case studies (largely of residential buildings) demonstrated a 15.6%
reduction in embodied carbon and a 3.2% reduction in operational
carbon relative to projects built exclusively with on-site construction
methods. The average reductions found across the case studies are not
definitive as the literature is inconsistent in its methodological choices
[13] and the number of case studies is too small a sample size. Claims
about modular buildings’ lower embodied carbon emissions are influ­
enced by the purported future reusability of wood and steel material
elements within the modular buildings. A complete assessment of a
modular building would also examine any trade-offs between embodied
and operational carbon emissions as a result of design decisions [13].
Table 1 outlines key information about the identified modular con­
struction LCA studies. Note that the studies with the “3D” designation
focus entirely on self-contained volumetric modules to offer a compar­
ison with this research’s scope. A brief literature review on panelized
and prefabricated elements, assemblies, and components is included in
the S.I. An overview of the studies is organized by life-cycle stages.
1.1.1.1. Product stage. Most of the studies listed in Table 1 include
embodied emissions from raw material extraction and processing. The
framing materials include steel, light-framed steel, cross-laminated
timber (CLT), dimensional lumber, and concrete. Emissions for the
product stage are typically calculated by relating the volumes of mate­
rials from the case study building to material-specific emission factors.
The bill of materials (BOM) for a case study are derived from cross-
sections of exterior/interior walls, floors, and roofs or directly from
3D models of the building. Emission factors for building materials reflect
the impacts associated with harvesting/mining raw materials, trans­
porting the raw material to a processing site, and processing the raw
materials to its finished product (e.g., mixing cement, aggregate, and
water at a concrete batch plant). Most of the studies used generic, pre-
established material-specific emission factors. Only one study utilized
environmental product declarations (EPDs) to calculate emissions from
materials. EPDs are standardized reports of the life-cycle impacts for a
specific product or material, oftentimes commissioned by the material’s
manufacturer. This means that EPDs can reflect local conditions at the
city, state, region, or nation-wide level. Recent trends in industry
practice point towards the use of EPDs to evaluate the environmental
impacts from building materials.
As with LCA studies of conventionally constructed buildings, the
contribution of embodied GHG emissions relative to the entire modular
building’s life-cycle impacts varies by factors such as building type and
location. A study examined differences in cradle-to-gate GHG emissions
(A1-A4) for two types of modular single-family buildings compared to
an on-site constructed residential building, finding that raw materials
(A1-A2) comprised between 48% and 56% of embodied GHG emissions
for the modular buildings and 53% for the on-site building [16].
1.1.1.2. Construction process stage. Based upon the studies included in
Table 1, most include GHG emissions from transportation and con­
struction activities in their scope. There is variety in the extent to which
A4 and A5 emissions are analyzed. Some provide relatively detailed
descriptions of off-site construction activities and on-site installation
activities [14,17,28], which is important for realistically capturing the
GHG impacts from the construction process stage. However, some of the
studies use simplifying assumptions that might yield unrealistic results.
Examples include modeling off-site construction impacts as: (1) a per­
centage of primary energy used in produced building materials [21]; (2)
the same, in terms of energy consumption, as on-site construction [15];
(3) an assumed emission factor based on a prior, unrelated study [20];
and (4) a ratio of on-site energy consumption [23]. Recent industry re­
ports have emphasized that the potential waste savings with modular
construction could be on the order of 20–90%, but these values are based
F. Greer and A. Horvath Building and Environment 240 (2023) 110432

Table 1
Overview of modular LCA studies by modular material, building typology, region, and life-cycle stage. Region codes: US = United States; CA = Canada; UK = United
Kingdom; AU = Australia; SE = Sweden; TH = Thailand; PK = Pakistan; KR = Republic of Korea; EU = European Union; ZA = South Africa; IN = India.
Source Modular Traditional Building Use Building Year Region Embodied Operational A1, A3 A4, B1 B6 C1–C4
Material Material Type* GHG [kg GHG [kg CO2/ A2 A5 –
CO2/m2] m2/year] B5

[14] Wood Brick Residential/ SF 2010 US 27.7 N/A X X

Low Rise
[15] Wood Wood Residential/ SF 2008 US 91.6 69.2 X X X X
Low Rise
[16] Wood Wood Residential/ SF 2019 CA 92.6–105.3 N/A X X X
Low Rise
[17] Wood Wood Residential/ MF, 3D 2009 CA 104.7 N/A X
Low Rise
[18] Wood Brick Residential/ SF 2011 UK 405–535 N/A X X X
Low Rise
[19] Wood Wood Residential/ SF 2012 US 73.2 N/A X X X
Low Rise
[20] Wood, Steel Concrete Residential/ MF, 3D 2011 AU 578–865 43.4–46.2 X X X X
Mid Rise
[21] Wood Wood Residential/ MF, 3D 2014 SE 139–149 6.3–8.4 X X X X X
Mid Rise
[22] Wood, Steel Brick Residential/ SF 2017 AU 302 N/A X X X
Low Rise
[23] Wood, Steel N/E Residential/ MF, 3D 2016 TH 382–9110 − 6.5 – 30.9 X X X X X
Low Rise
[24] Wood, Steel Brick Residential/ SF, 3D 2021 PK 332 N/A X X X
Low Rise
[25] Concrete, N/A Residential/ MF, 3D 2022 KR 280 N/A X
Steel Mid Rise
[26] Steel, N/A Residential/ SF, 3D 2018 EU 454–647 N/A X X X
Concrete, Low Rise
Wood
[27] Steel N/A Residential/ SF, 3D 2022 EU 560–672 17.2–57.8 X X X X
Low Rise
[28] Cross- N/A Residential/ MF, 3D 2022 SE 263 35.6 X X X X X X
laminated Low Rise
timber (CLT)
[29] Steel N/A Residential/ SF 2019 CA 193–298 105–301 X X X X X
Shipping Low Rise
Container
(SCC)
[30] SCC N/A Residential/ SF 2016 AU 185 9.8 X X X X X
Low Rise
[31] SCC Steel, CLT Residential/ SF 2020 CA, ZA, 45–55 3.8 X X X B4 X
Low Rise IN
[32] SCC N/A Residential/ SF 2020 CN 660–1510 8.7–284 X X X X X X
Low Rise

on a limited number of case studies [33].
Transportation emissions are most often modeled as a function of
distance between factory and housing site. With some exceptions where
actual transportation distances between the installation site and factory
are included [14,28], transportation distances from factories are
assumed to be within city limits [17] or some generic distance [26]. Of
importance, it is unclear whether any study accounts for return trips for
delivery vehicles (i.e., the empty flatbed returning to the factory site).
The overall impact of module transportation is context specific, with
some finding that it is one of the more emissions-intensive sources
within the system boundary compared to traditional construction [24],
while one of the studies found that while material transport was not a
significant source, worker transportation trips were significant [19].
1.1.1.3. Use stage. There are ongoing efforts, particularly at the U.S.
federal level, to leverage the potential to more efficiently achieve energy
efficiency and building decarbonization benefits through the use of
industrialized construction [34]. Guidelines developed by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory suggest that factory-built modules can
achieve improved thermal performances relative to on-site construction
by, for example, installing insulation in a quality-controlled environ­
ment. Presumably, improved thermal performance would yield lower
GHG emissions from the use phase in factory-built housing. This
sentiment is expressed in another study that used building energy
simulation to demonstrate that prefabricated buildings are likely to be
more energy efficient than traditionally constructed buildings [35]. As
shown in Table 1, some prior research efforts have examined the
cradle-to-grave GHG impacts between prefabricated/modular and
traditional construction. Most modular studies that have included the
use phase indicate that there are marginal differences, if that, between
factory-built and traditional construction in impacting building opera­
tional energy [15,21,28]. In those studies, the marginal differences in
energy use between modular and conventional construction are not due
to inherent differences between the two construction methods, but due
to design choices such as material type and building dimensions. More
research efforts should be dedicated to investigating potential differ­
ences between GHG emissions from the use phases of each type of
building.
1.1.1.4. End-of-life stage. The EOL implications on GHG emissions are
not typically included in most LCA studies on modular housing. In some
studies, GHG impacts from the EOL stage are excluded from the system
boundary due to its purported insignificance [27]. EOL is seen by some
as the key stage that could make prefabricated housing preferable to
traditional construction [36]. Modular housing is viewed by some as
being easier to disassemble from a GHG perspective, because modular is

3
F. Greer and A. Horvath
seen as being easier for disassembly [20,23,27] and apparent reuse of
materials [21,28], including concrete, steel, and timber, and waste
savings [18].
1.1.2. Scaling approaches
Much of the prefabricated and modular housing literature compares
single prefabricated or modular buildings to single conventionally built
examples. Assessments that can provide a realistic estimation of the
differences in GHG emissions at scale between generalized modular
buildings and conventionally constructed buildings by material type,
design, and other model parameters provide more context for stake­
holders. One study measures wide adoption of prefabricated construc­
tion in all European Union countries using a stock-based approach [37].
The authors compare the embodied, operational, and EOL GHG emis­
sions for light-gauge steel-framed and timber-framed modular residen­
tial buildings to on-site reinforced concrete residential buildings. Lisbon,
Berlin, and Stockholm are used as representative climates for all EU
countries. The stock-based approach accounts for expected rates of new
construction of both residential and office buildings as well as expected
rates of demolition from 2020 through 2050. Five typologies (low,
medium, and high-rise residential and medium and high-rise office) for
steel, wood, and concrete-framed budlings and three different levels of
insulation are explored. The results indicate that by 2050, prefabricated
buildings can reduce GHGs by 6% (steel-framed) to 4% (timber-framed)
compared to reinforced concrete buildings. The authors stress that
prefabricated buildings cannot alone help meet the EU’s emission
reduction goals. The EU study presents a first effort at assessing the
implementation of prefabricated buildings at scale, considering spatial
and temporal factors.
The remainder of the literature review, which covers differences in
modular framing materials and prefabricated assemblies, is presented in
the S.I. document, which also includes some of the calculations and all
the data incorporated into this study.
1.2. Research objectives
We assess various case-study multifamily buildings in California that
are modularly constructed and contrast their embodied GHG emissions
to conventionally constructed steel and timber-framed housing. Unlike
most studies, which focus on single building-to-building comparisons,
this study develops a novel approach to assess embodied carbon impacts
from implementing modular multifamily housing at scale. The objec­
tives of this research are to: (1) quantify and compare the embodied
GHG emissions of different housing types built with factory-made
modules relative to conventional, on-site construction methods; (2)
identify the suitable combination of modular types by housing need and
factory location in California; and (3) identify the relevant parameters
that influence emission benefits.
2. Methods
This study develops and applies a model to assess the potential GHG
benefits from implementing factory-built, modular housing in Califor­
nia. The specific scope of life-cycle impacts investigated is narrowed to
stages A1 through A5 (Fig. 1 in the S.I.). The scope is limited to assessing
upfront embodied GHG emissions for two key reasons. Given the need to
reduce the amount of GHGs entering the atmosphere now, it is imper­
ative to focus on the near-term emissions associated with constructing
buildings. Additionally, there is relatively more uncertainty associated
with assessing emission differences between modular and conventional
buildings for their Use (B6) and EOL (C1–C4) stages compared to their
Product (A1-A3) and Construction Process (A4-A5) stages. It is impor­
tant to understand and make decisions based upon a complete under­
standing of the GHG emissions from the whole life cycle of a modularly
or a conventionally constructed building. However, it is beyond the
scope of this research study to comprehensively account for the
4
Building and Environment 240 (2023) 110432
uncertainties in the use and EOL stages. The functional unit for this study
is embodied GHG emissions per m2 of building area.
California is a relevant case study for analyzing embodied carbon
emissions from wide-scale adoption of prefabricated multifamily,
multistory housing. The state’s population centers (i.e., the San Fran­
cisco Bay Area and the greater Los Angeles area), where there is most of
the demand for housing, are largely coupled with existing modular
factory locations. However, there are many, largely rural, areas of the
state where housing needs to be constructed, but there are no closely
located factories. The distinction between housing need and proximity
to factory locations is relevant for the embodied-carbon context and
would need to be considered if California were to implement a statewide
policy promoting factory-built housing. California also has a
geographically diverse and changing energy supply. While all retail
electricity sold in the state must achieve zero carbon emissions by 2045
[38], each utility has diverse generation assets with varying carbon in­
tensities [39]. Therefore, emission impacts of each modular factory’s
operations, and resulting impacts on the housing projects, will similarly
vary throughout the state. Finally, California has a rapidly changing
building materials policy landscape; recent legislation requires that
carbon intensity of building materials be reduced [40]. As a result of
new and future mandates, the proliferation of California-specific EPDs
has expanded, further allowing for detailed and representative exami­
nations of the impacts of building projects.
Two types of embodied GHG emission inventories are developed for
six example building types listed in Table 2. The first emissions in­
ventory is at the single-building scale and focuses only on comparing
emissions from materials used in the modular and conventional housing
examples. Results from the first emissions inventory are incorporated
into the second emissions inventory. The second emissions inventory is
calculated for various levels of housing that needs to be built in Cali­
fornia as per the number of housing units designated in Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) reports for each county. The county
aggregation is selected because California, which is the most populated
state in the United States [41], has 58 counties with diverse populations
(and housing needs), ranging from almost 10 million residents in Los
Angeles County to just over 1200 residents in Alpine County [42]. This
second emissions inventory includes emissions from building materials,
transportation, and construction activities for every county in the state.
Fig. 2 shows an overview of the methodological approach for assessing
the embodied GHG emissions from modular housing in California. Key
details on data sources and calculations are presented in the following
subsections. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis is conducted on key
modeling variables (e.g., module size, carbon intensity of factory energy
supply) in the second emissions inventory to explore which conditions
make modular construction yield GHG emission benefits in California.
The building types in Table 2 are selected for analysis in California
for two key reasons. In California, there are fewer concrete-framed
residential structures because of seismic codes [43]. Steel and
timber-framed are more common options; the steel shipping container is
a unique option being implemented in current projects throughout the
state [44,45]. Timber-framed options are further identified in the
“California Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan” as a suitable
Table 2
Descriptions for example buildings used in study.
Type Frame Story Approximate Gross BOM Data
Area (m2)
Conventional Timber 3 3700 Representative
Timber 2 2800 Representative
Steel 5 4500 Representative
Modular Steel Shipping 2 700 Actual
Container
Timber 3 3700 Representative
Steel 4–6 37,000 Actual
F. Greer and A. Horvath Building and Environment 240 (2023) 110432

Fig. 2. Methodological approach for assessing the embodied carbon (EC) emissions for modular housing in California.

option for storing carbon [46] and will likely represent a large share of excluded due to lack of availability and specificity of data. There are
new construction in the state. many ways to model material delivery and module transport to reflect
industry practice more accurately. Whether it is traditional on-site
2.1. Calculation steps construction or factory-based, raw materials are either transported
from the supplier to a staging area, or to a wholesale warehouse, or to
The steps for calculating emissions inventories for modular and the project site itself. Given the complexities of these supply chain lo­
conventional housing are very similar. The key differences lie in how gistics and the lack of available data from actual projects, it is sufficient
GHG emissions from transportation and construction activities are to simplify the transportation decisions to just include transportation of
calculated. Table 3 shows the scope of sources included in this study. modules from factories to project sites. Upstream emissions from the fuel
There are sources that could be included in the study, but are used in construction equipment and delivery vehicles (diesel) are also
excluded from the project scope due to lack of specificity about the types
and duration of construction equipment used in on-site and factory-built
Table 3
operations. The GHG emissions from changes in on-site worker trans­
Scope of emission sources for each housing type. Note that it is assumed that
upstream emissions for each housing type are equal. portation are also excluded. As results are presented at scale for the
entire state, any changes in worker transportation impacts would
Housing Type Bill of Materials Transportation Construction
require making assumptions on: (1) the types of vehicles that workers
Factory-Built/ • Standard Upstream + Delivery • Factory drive (e.g., model, age); (2) the distances from where workers are
Modular foundations of modules to manufacturing
traveling to factories versus where they are driving to job sites; and (3)
• Floor housing site • On-site assembly
Construction of modules the total number of trips taken, which would be dependent on how long
• Ceiling workers would be needed on a project.
Finishes The scaling analysis is based upon the number of RHNA units that
• Exterior need to be constructed in every city, town, and unincorporated area for
Windows
all 58 counties within California. The scaling scenario assumes that all
• Wall Finishes
• Floor Finishes unit numbers designated as for “Very Low Income” (<50% of area me­
• Interior Walls/ dian income) and “Low Income” (50–80% of area median income) are
Partitions assumed to be multifamily housing construction. This is around 40% of
• Exterior Walls
all housing units that need to be constructed in the state.
• Roof
Construction
• Roof 2.1.1. Building material-related GHG emissions
Coverings Emissions associated with building materials are calculated by
Conventional • Standard Upstream • On-site determining the masses of specific materials within each building type
foundations construction (i.e., the bill of materials, BOM) and then relating those amounts to
• Floor material-specific EPDs. The prototypical building datasets and EPDs
Construction
used in this study are provided in Table 2 through 6 in the S.I. Quantity
• Ceiling
Finishes takeoffs for materials in each building type are estimated using building
• Exterior information modeling, design codes, 2D construction drawings and
Windows specifications from actual projects, and the RSMeans database.
• Wall Finishes RSMeans, a U.S.-based subscription database for building materials and
• Floor Finishes
construction cost data, also provides BOM data on prototypical designs
• Interior Walls/
Partitions for various residential, commercial, and industrial buildings that vary by
• Exterior Walls structural frame, façade and insultation type, interior wall systems, and
• Roof finishes [47]. Equation (1) is used to calculate the A1 through A3
Construction
emissions:
• Roof
Coverings

5
F. Greer and A. Horvath Building and Environment 240 (2023) 110432

∑
n • The total number of modules that need to be transported is calculated
EM = (Mi × EPDi ) (1) by dividing the total needed building area for a county by the
i=1
average module floor area.

⁃ Where EM are the GHG emissions associated with raw material sup­
ply, transportation of raw material to manufacturing facilities, and
manufacturing of raw materials into building components.
⁃ Mi is the mass of material i for every relevant material in the building
up to material n.
⁃ EPDi is the environmental product declaration for material i in the
building.
A building-specific emission factor is found by dividing the total GHG
emissions from materials by each building’s total gross area. Material
GHG emissions are then scaled to each county in the state by multiplying
the total building area that needs to be constructed based upon RHNA
determinations (Equation (2)).
j (
∑ )
EM
EM,scaled = × NU,j × AMF (2)
i=1
AB
⁃ Where EM, scaled are the material GHG emissions scaled to the entire
state.
⁃ EM are the material GHG emissions for a building example
⁃ AB is the gross area for a specific building
⁃ NU,j are the scenario-specific number of housing units for each
county j
⁃ AMF is the average area for a multifamily housing unit.
The total building area for each county is then calculated by multi­
plying the total number projected housing units, which are found in the
sixth installment of each county’s RHNA report [8], by the average gross
area for a multifamily housing unit. The average area for a multifamily
unit in the Western United States from the 2015 U S. EIA Residential
Energy Consumption Survey [48] is used as an approximation of the
average floor area for a multifamily housing unit (828 ft2 or 77 m2 per
unit).
Transportation GHG emissions are calculated according to Equation
(3):
j ( )
∑ NM,j
ET,Scaled = × 2D × EFO (3)
i=1
CT
⁃ Where ET, scaled are the transportation GHG emissions scaled to the
entire state.
⁃ NM is the total number of modules for a given county j
⁃ CT is the capacity of the delivery vehicle
⁃ D is the distance from the module factory to the housing site (2D
reflects that an empty flatbed truck will return to the factory site)
⁃ EFO is the direct GHG emission factor for the delivery vehicle
A statewide GHG emission factor for a Class 8 delivery vehicle from
the California Air Resources Board’s EMission FACtor (EMFAC) model is
used [49]. Note that emissions from producing and distributing the fuel
used for the delivery flatbed truck are not considered in this study.
2.1.3. Construction-related GHG emissions
Construction GHG emissions are estimated for both on-site and
factory-made housing. A detailed construction analysis for the on-site
and factory-built methods would entail determining the type, dura­
tion, and emissions intensity of equipment used. Given the lack of in­
formation on construction equipment types and durations for both on-
site and factory-built operations and the high-level scaled approach to
emissions impact, a detailed accounting of emissions by specific con­
struction equipment is beyond the scope of this study. Instead, an
average emission factor for on-site construction of buildings (100 kg CO2
eq. per m2) that is derived from a review of building LCA literature is
used [50]. A later sensitivity analysis explores how on-site construction
emissions impact overall results. On-site construction GHG emissions
are calculated according to Equation (4):

2.1.2. Transportation-related GHG emissions

j
∑ ( )
EOS,Scaled = NU,j × AMF × EFOS (4)
For comparative purposes, it is assumed that the distances between i=1
raw material suppliers and either the construction site or the module
factory are the same. Therefore, the only transportation emissions
⁃ Where EOS, scaled are the on-site construction GHG emissions scaled to
considered for this study are those associated with delivering modules
the entire state.
from the factory to the site location. It can be difficult to accurately
⁃ NU,j are the scenario-specific number of housing units for each
model the potentially complicated supply chain relationship differences
county j
between conventionally built and factory-built housing. Material de­
⁃ AMF is the average floor area for a multifamily housing unit
liveries to on-site and factory locations are project specific and depen­
⁃ EFOS is the on-site construction emission factor
dent upon total material quantities needed and project schedule; there is
insufficient data to accurately assess the transportation impacts for all
A statewide GHG emission factor for a crane is calculated using the
housing units for each county.
offroad mobile source exhaust emissions inventory in EMFAC.
Eight existing factory locations (Table 8 in the S.I.) are analyzed to
The construction emissions associated with modular housing in­
calculate the travel distances between building sites and module fac­
cludes both factory emissions and on-site assembly emissions. Factory
tories. The county seat for each of the state’s 58 counties is used as the
GHG emissions are calculated by using electricity consumption data
proxy location in Google Maps to measure the vehicle-travel distance
from an actual modular factory in Los Angeles County. The average
between a factory location and a housing site (all traveling distances
electricity consumption per module is found by dividing the total
from each factory location to each county seat are provided in the S.I.).
amount of electricity consumed in the factory by the total number of
Additional assumptions include:
modules completed within the same time span. The GHG emissions in­
tensity for each of the three factory’s electricity supplies is calculated by
• Modules are assumed to be transported from the factory to the
multiplying the electricity profile mix for each factory’s utility by
housing site on a flatbed truck.
source-specific, life-cycle emission factors [51–53]. See Table 7 in the S.
• The flatbed can accommodate two modules in one delivery that are
I. for a description of each factory location’s electricity consumption per
each sized at 160 ft2 (~15 m2). The module size is determined from
module, electricity utility, and GHG electricity emission factor. Note
construction drawings from an existing modular housing project.
that the emission factors for PG&E and SCE are averages for the last six
One housing unit can comprise multiple modules.
years’ worth (2016–2021) of electricity source profiles to account for
year-to-year changes in electricity generation mixes. The last four years’

6
F. Greer and A. Horvath Building and Environment 240 (2023) 110432

worth (2018–2021) of electricity sources profiles for IID are averaged as
IID still sourced electricity from coal in 2016 and 2017.
On-site assembly-related emissions for modular housing are calcu­
lated with the assumption that one crane could lift one module into
place every 30 min. Total modular construction emissions are estimated
using Equation (5):
j
∑ [( ) ( )]
EFB,scaled = ME × EFElec,k + TM × NM,j × EFC
i=1
⁃ Where EFB, scaled are the factory-built construction GHG emissions
scaled to the entire state.
⁃ ME is the electricity consumption needed to make each module
⁃ EFElec, k is the electricity emission factor for factory k
⁃ TM is the time the crane needs to lift one module into place
⁃ NM, j is the total number of modules for a given county j
⁃ EFC is the direct emission factor for the crane, accounting for emis­
sions from fuel combustion while the crane is in operation.
2.1.4. Comparison between conventional and modular housing
The differences in GHG emissions between conventional and
modular housing are used to determine whether modular housing ulti­
mately yields GHG benefits. Equation (6) is used to calculate the per­
centage difference in cumulative GHG emissions between each housing
type:
( )
EFB − ECB
%ΔCB− FB = × 100% (6)
ECB
⁃ Where %ΔCB-FB is the percentage change in GHG emissions of
modular housing relative to conventional housing.
⁃ EFB is the GHG emissions for the factory-built (modular) housing
units
⁃ ECB is the GHG emissions for the conventional housing units
2.2. Sensitivity analysis steps
Whether modular housing yields GHG benefits relative to on-site
construction depends on the values of several key modeling variables.
When available, data from county documents, currently operating
modular factories, existing modular buildings, and electric utilities have
been utilized. Representative data for on-site housing projects come
from prototypical BOMs provided by RSMeans, an annually updated
construction estimating database that also includes BOM data for
various residential, commercial and industrial building designs [47]. A
sensitivity analysis is conducted to explore how changes in model var­
iables impact overall GHG emissions and to address uncertainty with
values used in the LCA model. The variables for which sensitivity
Table 4
Description of sensitivity analysis conducted on housing in Los Angeles County.
No. Modeling Variable Baseline Value
analyses have been conducted are presented in Table 4. The sensitivity
analysis method employed involves changing the baseline value of one
modeling variable at a time in 5% increments from − 95% of the baseline
value to +100% of the baseline value. Additionally, 25% increments
from +100% to +250% of the baseline value are modeled to account for
any extreme changes in results. The sensitivity analysis is applied to
results for housing in Los Angeles County, which is the most populous
(5) county in California and has the highest housing need [8,42]. The results
of this sensitivity analysis are largely representative for all counties,
although there could be different conclusions for each county (e.g.,
northern counties might see a greater difference in changing certain
modeling variables).
A Monte Carlo simulation is then conducted to explore how the
distribution of different modular and conventional housing types in­
fluences overall GHG emissions. A Dirichlet distribution [54] is applied
to simulate 15,000 randomized iterations of what type of modular
housing would be built and where the modular housing would come
from for each of the state’s 58 counties. This process is also repeated to
explore what effect a randomized distribution of different conventional
housing types has on overall GHG emissions benefits of modular hous­
ing. Equation (7) is the general equation for estimating the impacts from
randomized combinations of modular and conventional housing:
EC,H = a1 × EH1 + a2 × EH2 + … + an × EHn (7)
⁃ Where EC, H is the GHG emissions from some randomized combina­
tion of housing types in each county
⁃ a1, a2, …, an are the percentage amounts of each housing type in each
county which must sum to 100%
⁃ EH1, EH2, …, EHN are the GHG emissions from each housing type in
each county
2.3. Limitations
Results are presented for the BOM, transportation, and construction
contributions of GHG emissions for six different types of buildings (three
modular, three conventional) that represent potential building types
that might be constructed in California. Ideally, exact quantities of
materials, delivery distances, and construction activities would be
known and used in the LCA model. Additionally, it should be noted that
this analysis does not consider land-use or performance requirements for
specific locations when conducting the scaling-up assessment. For
example, a multifamily development in San Francisco might be 15 to 20
stories high and due to earthquake constraints might need a reinforced
concrete structural framing system.
3. Results
Results are presented as a scaled-up assessment for the entire state of
California. In terms of individual buildings, GHG emissions from the
BOM for each case study building are presented in the S.I. At the
statewide scale, GHG emissions from the BOM and transportation and
construction activities are shown for a range of scenarios and conditions.

1 On-site construction emission
factor for conventional
construction
2 Crane lifting time per module
3 Module floor area
4 Delivery flatbed truck capacity
5 BOM emissions intensity for all
module types
6 BOM emissions intensity for all
conventionally built types
7 Factory electricity consumption per
module
8 Factory electricity emission factor
100 kg CO2 eq. per m2 of housing
30 min
15 m2
2 modules per delivery trip
Baseline BOM emissions for each
module type
Baseline BOM emissions for each
conventionally built type
2500 kWh per module
Baseline electricity emission factor for
each of the three factory locations
3.1. Single building examples
Building emission factors for a select number of case studies are
presented in Table 5. The BOM (i.e., A1-A3) emission factors are of the
same order of magnitude as some of the modular case studies from the
literature (see Table 1), which provides confidence in the results.
Fig. 2 in the S.I. shows cumulative emissions for two of the example
buildings (conventionally built, steel-framed versus modular timber-
framed) by building component. The two example buildings shown in
Fig. 2 in the S.I. are of slightly different size and configuration. Weights
by material type for the two example buildings are shown in Table 9 in
the S.I. For the scaled-up analysis presented in the next section, the per-

7
F. Greer and A. Horvath Building and Environment 240 (2023) 110432

Table 5 Results that examine the GHG impacts when combinations of different
Building emission factors (in metric tons of CO2 eq. per m2) for each example module types from all factory locations are compared to combinations of
building type. conventional buildings are presented later in the Results section.
Type Frame Story Approximate Gross BOM EF [MT At the statewide level and under current modeling assumptions,
Area (m2) CO2 eq. m− 2] steel-framed and timber-framed modules fabricated in every factory
Traditional Timber 3 3700 0.17 location (except for Los Angeles County and Ada County in Idaho) yield
Timber 2 2800 0.15 GHG emission benefits relative to all three conventional examples. The
Steel 5 4500 0.27 results in Fig. 3 in the text and in Fig. 3 and 4 in the S.I. suggest the
Modular Steel Shipping 2 700 0.44 following points:
Container
Timber 3 3700 0.19 • The best-performing conventional option is the two-story timber-
Steel 4–6 37,000 0.16
framed building example.
• The shipping container module is not a beneficial option from an
unit material emission factors from Table 5 are used to assess the GHG embodied GHG emissions perspective.
emissions of the two construction methods in a more meaningful • Both steel and timber-framed modules constructed in Idaho yield
manner. emission reductions relative to conventional steel-framed housing.
However, modules from Idaho are more emissions intensive than
timber-framed conventional housing in California.
3.2. Statewide and county-level assessment of GHG emissions from • Emission reductions for all other factory locations in California are,
conventional and modular housing in general, more modest relative to timber-framed conventional
housing (Fig. 3 in the text, Fig. 4 in the S.I.) than they are for steel-
Results are first presented for all 58 counties in the state, comparing framed conventional housing (Fig. 3 in the S.I.).
three different traditionally constructed buildings to several modular
examples made in existing factory locations. All baseline assumptions Examining results at the county level provides further context about
for modeling variables (e.g., module floor area, crane lifting time, de­ which module types and factory locations will yield emission reductions
livery flatbed truck capacity, factory electricity consumption, on-site relative to on-site construction. Figs. 4 and 5 show emission changes for
construction emissions intensity) are provided in Table 4 in the different module types relative to prototypical, conventional timber-
Methods section. Fig. 3 shows the percentage difference in GHG emis­ framed multi-family units in Humboldt and Alameda Counties, respec­
sions for one of the three conventional examples compared to different tively. In Alameda County, modules made in factories within and near
modular options (the remaining results are in the S.I.). It is assumed that the San Francisco Bay Area yield higher emission reductions compared
all required RHNA units are built as one type of modular building (e.g., to other factory locations. In Humboldt County, where the closest fac­
all are steel-framed modules from Ada County, Idaho or all are timber- tory is 280 miles away, the further away a factory is located, the less
framed modules from a factory in Solano County in California).

Fig. 3. Comparison of changes in statewide embodied carbon (EC) emissions for module combinations (by frame type and factory location) relative to if the number
of multifamily housing units assessed in each county were built with traditional on-site, timber-framed construction. A positive percentage change (indicated in red)
means that the module type’s EC emissions are greater than the traditional example. A negative percentage change means that the module type leads to EC emission
savings. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

8
F. Greer and A. Horvath Building and Environment 240 (2023) 110432

Fig. 4. Comparison of changes in Humboldt County embodied carbon (EC) emissions for module combinations (by frame type and factory location) relative to if the
number of multifamily housing units assessed in each county were built with traditional on-site, timber-framed construction. A positive percentage change (indicated
in red) means that the module type’s EC emissions are greater than the traditional example. A negative percentage change means that the module type leads to EC
emission savings. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

likely for there to be emissions benefits for modular housing. • Delivery flatbed truck capacity is also an indicator for overall GHG
performance. A decrease in delivery flatbed truck capacity yields
3.3. Sensitivity of key modeling variables to overall results GHG emission increases for modules.

Before making any conclusions about the emissions benefits from
modular construction, it is crucial to examine how uncertainty with key
modeling variables might change results. Within each county, it is likely
that modules will come from multiple factory locations. Later results use
a randomized method to examine how utilization rates of each modular
and conventional type affect overall GHG emissions.
A comparison of all modeling variables for one specific type of
module (timber-framed module made in the San Francisco Bay Area and
used in Los Angeles County) is shown in Fig. 6. Key take-aways from
Fig. 6 are that:
• Crane lifting time per module and the GHG emission factor for fac­
tory electricity and factory electricity consumption appear to have
much influence on overall GHG emissions for this module type
• Changing the emissions intensity for the module’s BOM increases the
overall GHG performance for the module while changing the con­
ventional example’s BOM decreases overall GHG performance for
the module
• There appears to be a sweet spot for module floor area (in LA County
at least) where a module sized between 60 and 180 ft2 yields emis­
sion reductions. Any module smaller than 60 ft2 and greater than
180 ft2 yields massive emission increases
• The on-site emission factor appears to be correlated with whether a
module is indeed better than conventional construction. If a lower
on-site construction emission factor is achieved relative to what is
modeled under the baseline conditions, on-site appears to perform
better than factory-built from an overall GHG emissions perspective.
Fig. 5 through 12 in the S.I. offer more insight into how changing key
modeling parameters impacts GHG emissions using Los Angeles County
for illustrative purposes, assuming 100% utilization of each type of
module.
3.4. County-level GHG rankings
A randomized allocation of each module type is compared to both
100% utilization of timber-framed, conventional housing as well as a
randomized utilization of all three conventional building types. Using
Los Angeles County first as an illustrative example, on average, after
performing 15,000 randomized iterations, all possible combinations of
modular yield approximately 4% fewer GHG emissions than prototypi­
cal timber-framed conventional (see Fig. 13 in the S.I.). Removing the
worst-performing modular type (steel shipping container) means that
modular is around 24% better than the timber-framed conventional
example.
Fig. 7 through Fig. 10 show the rankings of modular GHG perfor­
mance from worst to best for each county in California.
• Fig. 7 shows randomized allocation of all modular types compared to
just the conventional timber-framed example. Under this scenario, it
appears that except for most Northern California counties, modular
achieves modest GHG emission benefits.
• Fig. 8 depicts the same scenario as Fig. 7, except the worst-
performing modular type (steel shipping container) has been
removed. Modular appears to perform better than conventional
statewide by 25%. Modular demonstrates emission reductions in

9
F. Greer and A. Horvath
Fig. 5. Comparison of changes in Alameda County embodied carbon (EC) emissions for module combinations (by frame type and factory location) relative to if the
number of multifamily housing units assessed in each county were built with traditional on-site, timber-framed construction. A positive percentage change (indicated
in red) means that the module type’s EC emissions are greater than the traditional example. A negative percentage change means that the module type leads to EC
emission savings. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
counties ranging from 12% in Del Norte County to 29% in Santa
Clara County
• Fig. 9 shows randomized allocation of all modular types compared to
randomized allocation of all conventional types. This is probably a
realistic depiction of how housing developments throughout the
state might source modular types from different companies and
factory locations. Under this scenario, except for Del Norte and
Modoc counties, all other counties achieve modest GHG emission
benefits from modular.
• Fig. 10 depicts the same scenario as Fig. 9, except the worst-
performing modular type (steel shipping container) has been
removed. Modular appears to perform better than all conventional
types in all counties. However, the benefits are more muted
compared to the scenario depicted in Fig. 8.
There are key takeaways from Fig. 7 through 10 for policymakers in
California. The shipping container module type should not be utilized as
its BOM has a relatively higher emissions intensity. Embodied carbon
emissions are lowest for counties that are closely located with factories,
highlighting the importance of module transportation. Realistically,
modular achieves modest embodied carbon benefits relative to tradi­
tional construction methods in California.
3.5. Sources of uncertainties
Uncertainty plays an important role in determining the potential
embodied carbon emission benefits from modular housing. The margins
of error in data sources and modeling decisions can render any differ­
ences between modular and conventional housing insignificant. Addi­
tional uncertainty assessments, beyond the Monte Carlo simulation for
allocation of modular types, are necessary to draw any firmer
10
Building and Environment 240 (2023) 110432
conclusions about factory-built housing. Sources of uncertainties in
modeling approaches and the results of this study include:
• The use of representative data for building BOMs in California.
However, the representative data come from RSMeans, and while not
entirely specific to California codes and conditions, they are based
upon national surveys of actual practices from contractors and
builders.
• The assumption about upstream logistics (e.g., where raw materials
are delivered from) being coequal between the two housing con­
struction methods would need to be further explored.
• Simplification of on-site construction processes for both conven­
tional construction and on-site assembly of modules.
• Specific differences between on-site construction and factory activ­
ities in terms of material waste and duration of equipment use can
likewise inform this scaled approach.
• Future work would also need to consider additional material types
(including mass timber/CLT) with California-specific values for
biomass.
• Further effort would need to be done to expand the scope of life-cycle
stages for each housing construction method, particularly as it affects
to EOL impacts and the storage of biogenic carbon in biomass-based
structural framing.
Uncertainty from all sources could be improved by inclusion of more
data from existing projects. This effort would require further coopera­
tion with general contractors, building designers, and modular factory
companies.
F. Greer and A. Horvath Building and Environment 240 (2023) 110432

Fig. 6. Effects of changing key model variables for timber-framed modules made in Solano County in California used for multi-family developments in Los
Angeles County.

Fig. 7. Comparison of average randomized (n =

15,000 iterations) proportions of different modular
types to prototypical timber-framed conventional
housing. A positive percentage change means that
modular construction results in embodied carbon
(EC) emission gains relative to traditional con­
struction methods. A negative percentage change
indicates emission savings. Statewide, modular de­
creases embodied carbon (EC) emissions by 4%
compared to timber-framed conventional housing.
Percentage changes relative to timber-framed con­
ventional are called out for Sacramento (− 1%),
Alameda (− 3%), Los Angeles (− 4%) Counties, the
county with the lowest EC benefits (Del Norte at
13%), and the county with the highest EC benefits
(Kern at − 6%).

11
F. Greer and A. Horvath
4. Discussion
There are two important outcomes of this research for policymakers:
(1) context-specific policy guidelines for California on whether factory-
built housing can achieve embodied carbon emission reductions relative
to traditional methods, and (2) a scaled modeling approach that can be
12
Building and Environment 240 (2023) 110432
Fig. 8. Comparison of average randomized (n =
15,000 iterations) proportions of different modular
types, minus the steel shipping container module
type, to prototypical timber-framed conventional
housing. A positive percentage change means that
modular construction results in embodied carbon
(EC) emission gains relative to traditional con­
struction methods. A negative percentage change
indicates emission savings. Statewide, modular de­
creases embodied carbon (EC) emissions by 25%
compared to timber-framed conventional housing.
Percentage changes relative to timber-framed con­
ventional are called out for Sacramento (− 23%),
Alameda (− 27%), Los Angeles (− 24%) Counties,
the county with the lowest EC benefits (Del Norte at
− 12%), and the county with the highest EC benefits
(Santa Clara at − 29%).
Fig. 9. Comparison of average randomized (n =
15,000 iterations) proportions of different modular
types to prototypical conventional housing. A posi­
tive percentage change means that modular con­
struction results in embodied carbon (EC) emission
gains relative to traditional construction methods. A
negative percentage change indicates emission sav­
ings. Statewide, modular decreases embodied car­
bon (EC) emissions by 12% compared to all
conventional housing. Percentage changes relative
to timber-framed conventional are called out for
Sacramento (− 9%), Alameda (− 12%), Los Angeles
(− 13%) Counties, the county with the lowest EC
benefits (Del Norte at 3%), and the county with the
highest EC benefits (Kern at − 14%).
Fig. 10. Comparison of average randomized (n =
15,000 iterations) proportions of different modular
types, minus the steel shipping container module
type, to prototypical conventional housing. A posi­
tive percentage change means that modular con­
struction results in embodied carbon (EC) emission
gains relative to traditional construction methods. A
negative percentage change indicates emission sav­
ings. Statewide, modular decreases embodied car­
bon (EC) emissions by 18% compared to all
conventional housing. Percentage changes relative
to timber-framed conventional are called out for
Sacramento (− 4%), Alameda (− 18%), Los Angeles
(− 18%) Counties, the county with the lowest EC
benefits (Del Norte at − 4%), and the county with
the highest EC benefits (Kern at − 20%).
used to assess the embodied carbon impacts from modular multifamily
housing. Regarding the former, notwithstanding uncertainty and po­
tential limitations from this study, the results suggest that modular
housing could potentially yield embodied carbon emission benefits
relative to conventionally constructed housing. Based upon the data and
modeling assumptions in this study, some of the key factors that
F. Greer and A. Horvath
influence potential benefits of modular housing are the: (1) structural
framing material of both the modular and conventional house; (2) dis­
tance between the factory and the housing site; (3) module size; and (4)
delivery flatbed-truck capacity. However, absent the incorporation of
more representative data for factory and on-site operations, building
material quantities, and additional data, firm conclusions about
modular housing are not possible to make.
In general, the results point towards the need to take a county-by-
county or region-by-region approach for assessing whether modular
housing can lead to GHG emission reductions. Factory location and
required number of housing units influence overall GHG emissions for
each county. Except for the factory in Idaho, all the factories included in
the study are either located in or around the San Francisco Bay Area, in
the Central Valley, or in Southern California. The results demonstrate
that modular housing does not appear to be as beneficial for counties in
the northern part of the state due to the long distances from existing
modular factories. In some instances (Fig. 7), conventional housing
appears to be preferable to modular housing in Northern California. This
conclusion could change with the opening of factories closer to sources
of demand.
While the results of this research are largely unique to California, the
modeling framework and approach are applicable to any location. This
framework could be replicated for any location by using location-
specific EPDs, transportation distances, factory outputs and electricity
sources, and housing demand needs. Broadly, this research highlights
the need to study the embodied carbon implications of the built envi­
ronment and how life-cycle assessment is needed for policymakers to
make informed decisions.
It is important to consider how effective modular housing might be in
achieving broader environmental goals (such as mitigating GHG emis­
sions) relative to potential negatives. The production capacities of cur­
rent modular factories in California are much lower than the number of
housing units that need to be constructed. If more factories need to be
built, or if the capacities of existing factories are expanded, there exists
potential to exacerbate existing human health and environmental justice
concerns (e.g., increased production of modules could lead to increased
traffic from diesel-powered delivery vehicles). Given that the Cali­
fornian factories are currently in locations that are designated as
disadvantage communities as determined by the state’s environmental
pollution mapping tool [55], additional analysis should be undertaken
to assess whether the state’s housing needs and its climate change
mitigation goals can be met just as efficiently with more conventional
housing methods that incorporate low-carbon materials. Future research
should incorporate these additional concerns into assessing the strate­
gies that can meet the state’s needs to provide housing while mitigating
GHG emissions.
5. Conclusions
The embodied GHG emissions associated with constructing multi­
family housing using factory-built modules are compared to emissions
from traditional, on-site construction methods. A model is developed to
assess GHG emissions associated with raw materials, construction ac­
tivities, and transportation operations for the future stock of multifamily
housing in California. The results demonstrate the utility of using a
scaled, context-specific approach that incorporates both representative
and actual data in assessing the potential benefits of modular housing at
a local and regional level. Under the various modeling assumptions and
scenarios, modular housing could achieve average GHG reductions on
the order of 4%–20% for most counties compared to housing units
constructed using conventional methods. Limitations of the study
include the limited sample size of actual project data. Future research
efforts should expand upon this study’s scaling approach by including
larger samples of existing project data (e.g., more building projects,
material waste differences between modular and traditional projects,
different building materials) and by expanding the scope of the system
13
Building and Environment 240 (2023) 110432
boundary to include operational and end-of-life implications of modular
buildings, including tighter building envelopes and circular design.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Fiona Greer: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation,
Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptu­
alization. Arpad Horvath: Project administration, Funding acquisition,
Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing –
review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Financial support for the research was provided by California Air Re­
sources Board.
Data availability
We have shared data and supporting information in the S.I. section.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the California Air
Resources Board under contract 21STC018. This article has not been
reviewed by CARB. The views expressed in this document are solely
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the agency.
Neither the authors nor CARB endorse any products or technologies
mentioned in this publication.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110432.
References
[1] UN Environment Programme & GlobalABC, Global Status Report for Buildings and
Construction: Towards a Zero-Emissions, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and
Construction Sector (2022).
[2] M. Röck, et al., Embodied GHG emissions of buildings–The hidden challenge for
effective climate change mitigation, Appl. Energy 258 (2020), 114107.
[3] W. Zhou, et al., Modelling future trends of annual embodied energy of urban
residential building stock in China, Energy Pol. 165 (2022), 112932.
[4] M. Hu, A look at residential building stock in the United States-mapping life cycle
embodied carbon emissions and other environmental impact, Sustain. Cities Soc.
89 (2023), 104333.
[5] W.L. Ng, M.Y. Chin, J. Zhou, K.S. Woon, A.Y. Ching, The overlooked criteria in
green building certification system: embodied energy and thermal insulation on
non-residential building with a case study in Malaysia, Energy 259 (2022), 124912.
[6] M. Winkler, California Poised to Overtake Germany as World’s No. 4 Economy,
Bloomberg.com, 2022.
[7] U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts: California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/
CA, 2022.
[8] California Department of Housing and Community Development, Regional housing
needs allocation. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development
/regional-housing-needs-allocation, 2023.
[9] California Air Resources Board (CARB), Building decarbonization. https://ww2.
arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/building-decarbonization, 2023.
[10] A. Gibb, Pre-assembly in Construction: A Review of Recent and Current Industry
and Research Initiatives on Pre-assembly in Construction, 2001.
[11] M. Kamali, K. Hewage, Life cycle performance of modular buildings: a critical
review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 62 (2016) 1171–1183.
[12] M. Kamali, K. Hewage, A.S. Milani, Life cycle sustainability performance
assessment framework for residential modular buildings: aggregated sustainability
indices, Build. Environ. 138 (2018) 21–41.
[13] Y. Teng, K. Li, W. Pan, T. Ng, Reducing building life cycle carbon emissions
through prefabrication: evidence from and gaps in empirical studies, Build.
Environ. 132 (2018) 125–136.
[14] L.R. Kawecki, Environmental Performance of Modular Fabrication: Calculating the
Carbon Footprint of Energy Used in the Construction of a Modular Home, Arizona
State University, 2010.
F. Greer and A. Horvath
[15] D. Kim, Preliminary Life Cycle Analysis of Modular and Conventional Housing in
Benton Harbor, MI, 2008.
[16] M. Kamali, K. Hewage, R. Sadiq, Conventional versus modular construction
methods: a comparative cradle-to-gate LCA for residential buildings, Energy Build.
204 (2019), 109479.
[17] M. Al-Hussein, J.D. Manrique, D. Mah, North Ridge CO2 Analysis Report:
Comparison between Modular and On-Site Construction, Univversity of Alberta,
Edmonton, Canada, 2009.
[18] J. Monahan, J.C. Powell, An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern
methods of construction in housing: a case study using a lifecycle assessment
framework, Energy Build. 43 (2011) 179–188.
[19] J. Quale, M.J. Eckelman, K.W. Williams, G. Sloditskie, J.B. Zimmerman,
Construction matters: comparing environmental impacts of building modular and
conventional homes in the United States, J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (2012) 243–253.
[20] L. Aye, T. Ngo, R.H. Crawford, R. Gammampila, P. Mendis, Life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building modules,
Energy Build. 47 (2012) 159–168.
[21] A. Dodoo, L. Gustavsson, R. Sathre, Lifecycle carbon implications of conventional
and low-energy multi-storey timber building systems, Energy Build. 82 (2014)
194–210.
[22] A.W.A. Hammad, A. Akbarnezhad, Modular vs conventional construction: a multi-
criteria framework approach, in: ISARC. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, vol. 34, IAARC
Publications, 2017.
[23] J.J. Bukoski, P. Chaiwiwatworakul, S.H. Gheewala, The life cycle assessment of an
energy-positive peri-urban residence in a tropical regime, J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (2017)
1115–1127.
[24] H. Pervez, Y. Ali, A. Petrillo, A quantitative assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from conventional and modular construction: a case of developing
country, J. Clean. Prod. 294 (2021), 126210.
[25] H. Jang, Y. Ahn, S. Roh, Comparison of the embodied carbon emissions and direct
construction costs for modular and conventional residential buildings in South
Korea, Buildings 12 (2022) 51.
[26] V. Tavares, N. Lacerda, F. Freire, Embodied energy and greenhouse gas emissions
analysis of a prefabricated modular house: the “Moby” case study, J. Clean. Prod.
212 (2019) 1044–1053.
[27] V. Tavares, F. Freire, Life cycle assessment of a prefabricated house for seven
locations in different climates, J. Build. Eng. 53 (2022), 104504.
[28] A. Al-Najjar, A. Dodoo, Modular multi-storey construction with cross-laminated
timber: life cycle environmental implications, Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 1–15 (2022).
[29] C. Dara, C. Hachem-Vermette, G. Assefa, Life cycle assessment and life cycle
costing of container-based single-family housing in Canada: a case study, Build.
Environ. 163 (2019), 106332.
[30] H. Islam, G. Zhang, S. Setunge, M.A. Bhuiyan, Life cycle assessment of shipping
container home: a sustainable construction, Energy Build. 128 (2016) 673–685.
[31] M. Bertolini, L. Guardigli, Upcycling shipping containers as building components:
an environmental impact assessment, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25 (2020) 947–963.
[32] D. Satola, et al., Comparative life cycle assessment of various energy efficiency
designs of a container-based housing unit in China: a case study, Build. Environ.
186 (2020), 107358.
[33] MBI, Industry analysis. Modular building institute. https://www.modular.org
/industry-analysis/, 2023.
[34] S. Pless, et al., The Energy in Modular (EMOD) Buildings Method: A Guide to
Energy-Efficient Design for Industrialized Construction of Modular Buildings,
2022.
14
Building and Environment 240 (2023) 110432
[35] F.H. Ismail, M. Shahrestani, M. Vahdati, P. Boyd, S. Donyavi, Climate change and
the energy performance of buildings in the future–a case study for prefabricated
buildings in the UK, J. Build. Eng. 39 (2021), 102285.
[36] R.E. López-Guerrero, S. Vera, M. Carpio, A quantitative and qualitative evaluation
of the sustainability of industrialised building systems: a bibliographic review and
analysis of case studies, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 157 (2022), 112034.
[37] V. Tavares, J. Gregory, R. Kirchain, F. Freire, What is the potential for
prefabricated buildings to decrease costs and contribute to meeting EU
environmental targets? Build. Environ. 206 (2021), 108382.
[38] California Energy Commission, SB 100 joint agency report. California Energy
Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sb100, 2023.
[39] E. Grubert, J. Stokes-Draut, A. Horvath, W. Eisenstein, Utility-specific projections
of electricity sector greenhouse gas emissions: a committed emissions model-based
case study of California through 2050, Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020), 1040a4.
[40] C. Holden, California AB2446 | 2021-2022 | regular session. LegiScan. https://legi
scan.com/CA/text/AB2446/id/2607014, 2022.
[41] H. Johnson, E. McGhee, M. Cuellar Mejia, California’s population. Public Policy
Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-population/,
2023.
[42] U.S. Census Bureau, California remained most populous state but growth slowed
last decade. Census.gov. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/state-by-state
/california-population-change-between-census-decade.html, 2021.
[43] A.P. Gursel, A. Shehabi, A. Horvath, Embodied energy and greenhouse gas
emission trends from major construction materials of US office buildings
constructed after the Mid-1940s, Build. Environ. 110196 (2023).
[44] J. McKnight, Shipping containers used to build LA housing complex for the
homeless. Dezeen. https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/29/shipping-containers-lo
s-angeles-housing-complex-homeless-nac-architecture-bernards/, 2021.
[45] E. Ikeme, City awarded $12.3 million to build dignity village. Alameda Sun. https
://alamedasun.com/news/city-awarded-123-million-build-dignity-village, 2022.
[46] Cal EPA, California’s Wildfire and forest resilience action plan: a comprehensive
strategy of the governor’s forest management task force. https://wildfiretaskforce.
org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/californiawildfireandforestresilienceactionplan
.pdf, 2021.
[47] Gordian, RSMeans data - North America’s leading construction cost database.
Gordian. https://www.gordian.com/products/rsmeans-data-services/, 2023.
[48] EIA. Energy Information Administration (EIA), About the Residential Energy
Consumption Survey (RECS) Table HC1.1 Fuels used and end uses in U.S. homes by
housing unit type. https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/hc
/php/hc10.13.php, 2015 (2018).
[49] CARB, EMFAC. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory/0736f434eef49afe
1042ae7089aed89058368c06, 2022.
[50] A. Säynäjoki, J. Heinonen, S. Junnila, A. Horvath, Can life-cycle assessment
produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector? Environ. Res. Lett. 12
(2017), 013001.
[51] CEC, Power content label. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.
gov/programs-and-topics/programs/power-source-disclosure/power-content-labe
l, 2023.
[52] Idaho Power, Our energy sources. https://www.idahopower.com/energy-environ
ment/energy/energy-sources/, 2023.
[53] A. Horvath, J. Stokes, Life-cycle energy assessment of alternative water supply
systems in California. https://uc-ciee.org/ciee-old/downloads/Life-cycleHorvath.
pdf, 2011.
[54] NumPy Developers, numpy.random.dirichlet — NumPy v1.24 Manual. http
s://numpy.org/doc/stable/reference/random/generated/numpy.random.dirich
let.html, 2022.
[55] OEHHA, CalEnviroScreen. OEHHA. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen, 2022.