Functional unit influence on building life cycle assessment

Abstract

Purpose

The building sector is one of the most relevant sectors in terms of environmental impact. Different functional units (FUs) can be used in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies for a variety of purposes. This paper aimed to present different FUs used in the LCA of buildings and evaluate the influence of FU choice and setting in comparative studies.

Methods

As an example, we compared the “cradle to grave” environmental performance of four typical Brazilian residential buildings with different construction typologies, i.e., multi-dwelling and single dwelling, each with high and basic standards. We chose three types of FU for comparison: a dwelling with defined lifetime and occupancy parameters, an area of 1 m2 of dwelling over a year period, and the accommodation of an occupant person of the dwelling over a day.

Results and discussion

The FU choice was found to bias the results considerably. As expected, the largest global warming indicator (GWi) values per dwelling unit and occupant were identified for the high standard dwellings. However, when measured per square meter, lower standard dwellings presented the largest GWi values. This was caused by the greater concentration of people per square meter in smaller area dwellings, resulting in larger water and energy consumption per square meter. The sensitivity analysis of FU variables such as lifetime and occupancy showed the GWi contribution of the infrastructure more relevant compared with the operation in high and basic standard dwellings. The definition of lifetime and occupancy parameters is key to avoid bias and to reduce uncertainty of the results when performing a comparison of dwelling environmental performances.

Conclusions

This paper highlights the need for adequate choice and setting of FU to support intended decision-making in LCA studies of the building sector. The use of at least two FUs presented a broader picture of building performance, helping to guide effective environmental optimization efforts from different approaches and levels of analysis. Information regarding space, time, and service dimensions should be either included in the FU setting or provided in the building LCA study to allow adjustment of the results for subsequent comparison.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. AHS (American Housing Survey) (2017) General Housing Data - All Occupied Units, Year Built. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs.html Accessed 9 April 2020

  2. Albertí J, Brodhag C, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2019) First steps in life cycle assessments of cities with a sustainability perspective: A proposal for goal, function, functional unit, and reference flow. Sci Total Environ 646:1516–1527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.377

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anand CK, Amor B (2017) Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: A critical review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 67:408–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Asdrubali F, Baldassarri C, Fthenakis V (2013) Life cycle analysis in the construction sector: Guiding the optimization of conventional Italian buildings. Energy Build 64:73–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.04.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baccini P, Brunner PH (2012) Methabolism of anthroposphere: analysis, evaluation, design. The MIT Press (second edition), Cambridge

  6. Balaguera A, Carvajal GI, Albertí J, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2018) Life cycle assessment of road construction alternative materials: A literature review. Resour Conserv Recycl 132:37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blengini GA, Di Carlo T (2010) Energy-saving policies and low-energy residential buildings: an LCA case study to support decision makers in Piedmont (Italy). Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:652–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0190-5

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bonamente E, Cotana F (2015) Carbon and Energy Footprints of Prefabricated Industrial Buildings: A Systematic Life Cycle Assessment Analysis. Energies 8:2685–12701. https://doi.org/10.3390/en81112333

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Buyle M, Braet J, Audenaert A (2013) Life cycle assessment in the construction sector: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 26:379–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bueno C (2014) Avaliação de Ciclo de Vida na Construção Civil: Análise de Sensibilidade. [Life Cycle Assessment in Civil Construction: Sensitivity Analysis]. Thesis, Universidade de São Paulo

  11. Bueno C, Hauschild MZ, Rossignolo JA et al (2016) Sensitivity analysis of the use of Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods: a case study on building materials. J Clean Prod 112:2208–2220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cabeza LF, Rincón L, Vilariño V et al (2014) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 29:394–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. CBS (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek) (2019) Voorraad woningen; gemiddeld oppervlak; woningtype, bouwjaarklasse, regio. Statistics Netherlands. https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/82550NED/table?fromstatweb Accessed 14 November 2019

  14. Chau CK, Leung TM, Ng WY (2015) A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings. Appl Energy 143:395–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cooper JS (2003) Specifying functional units and reference flows for comparable alternatives. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:337–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cuéllar-Franca RM, Azapagic A (2012) Environmental impacts of the UK residential sector: Life cycle assessment of houses. Build Environ 54:86–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Daigo I, Iwata K, Oguchi M, Goto Y (2017) Lifetime Distribution of Buildings Decided by Economic Situation at Demolition: D-based Lifetime Distribution. Procedia CIRP 61:146–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. EeBGuide (2011) EeBGuide Guidance Document – Part B: Buildings. Energy - Efficient Building (E2B), European Initiative (EI), Brussels

  19. EN - 15978 (2011) Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of environmental performance of buildings - Calculation method. British Standards Institution (BSI), London

  20. Erlandsson M, Levin P (2004) Environmental assessment of rebuilding and possible performance improvements effect on a national scale. Build Environ 39:1453–1465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Evangelista PPA (2017) Desempenho ambiental na construção civil: parâmetros para aplicação da avaliação do ciclo de vida em edificações residenciais brasileiras. [Environmental performance in civil construction: parameters for life cycle assessment application in Brazilian residential buildings]. Thesis, Federal University of Bahia (UFBA)

  22. Evangelista PPA, Kiperstok A, Torres EA, Gonçalves JP (2018) Environmental performance analysis of residential buildings in Brazil using life cycle assessment (LCA). Constr Build Mater 169:748–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ferreira A, Pinheiro MD, de Brito J, Mateus R (2018) Combined carbon and energy intensity benchmarks for sustainable retail stores. Energy 165:877–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Filimonau V, Santa-Rosa MS, Franca LS, Cánovas A, Ribeiro GM, Molnarova J, Piumatti RG (2018) Tourism and accommodation services. ecoinvent Association, Zürich

  25. Hauschild MZ, Kara S, Røpke I (2020) Absolute sustainability: challenges to life cycle engineering. CIRP Ann 69:533–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2020.05.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Heijungs R, Kleijn R (2001) Numerical approaches towards life cycle interpretation five examples. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:141–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978732

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. IBGE (2019) Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios (PNAD) - Características gerais dos domicílios e dos moradores 2018 [National Household Sample Survey - General characteristics of households and residents - 2018]. Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/livros/liv101654_informativo.pdf. Accessed 18 Mar 2020.

  28. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva

  30. ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva

  31. Kamali M, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2019) Conventional versus modular construction methods: A comparative cradle-to-gate LCA for residential buildings. Energy Build 204:109479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kim SJ, Kara S, Hauschild M (2017) Functional unit and product functionality - addressing increase in consumption and demand for functionality in sustainability assessment with LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:1257–1265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1233-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Larriva RA, Calleja Rodríguez G, Cejudo López JM et al (2014) A decision-making LCA for energy refurbishment of buildings: Conditions of comfort. Energy Build 70:333–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.11.049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lasvaux S, Gantner J, Wittstock B et al (2014) Achieving consistency in life cycle assessment practice within the European construction sector: the role of the EeBGuide InfoHub. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1783–1793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0786-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lavagna M, Baldassarri C, Campioli A et al (2018) Benchmarks for environmental impact of housing in Europe: Definition of archetypes and LCA of the residential building stock. Build Environ 145:260–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.09.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Maslesa E, Nielsen SB, Birkved M, Hultén J (2017) Environmental indicators for non-residential buildings: When, what, and how to measure? In: Nielsen SB, Jensen PA, Brinkø R (eds) Research papers for EUROFM’S 16th Research Symposium. Polyteknisk Forlag, Lyngby, pp 8–19

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mateus R, Silva SM, de Almeida MG (2019) Environmental and cost life cycle analysis of the impact of using solar systems in energy renovation of Southern European single-family buildings. Renew Energy 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.04.036

  38. Micolier A, Loubet P, Taillandier F, Sonnemann G (2019) To what extent can agent-based modelling enhance a life cycle assessment? Answers based on a literature review. J Clean Prod 239:118123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. MINVU (Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo) (2019) Predios habitacionales por año de construcción - total país según región y comuna al segundo semestre 2018 [Housing properties by year of construction - country total according to region and commune in the second half of 2018]. Government of Chile. https://www.observatoriourbano.cl/estadisticas-habitacionales/ Accessed 14 November 2019

  40. Morales M, Moraga G, Araujo A, Santos C, Kirchheim AP, Passuello A (2017) Impacts of functional unit definition in social housing LCA: a Brazilian case study. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in Latin America – CILCA 2017. Medellín, Colombia

  41. Morales M, Moraga G, Kirchheim AP, Passuello A (2019) Regionalized inventory data in LCA of public housing: A comparison between two conventional typologies in southern Brazil. J Clean Prod 238:117869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Moreno-Ruiz E, Valsasina L, FitzGerald D, Brunner F, Symeonidis A, Bourgault G, Wernet G (2019) Documentation of changes implemented in ecoinvent database v3.6. ecoinvent Association, Zürich

  43. NBR - 15575 (2013) Edificações Habitacionais - Desempenho - Requisitos gerais [Housing Buildings - Performance - General requirements]. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT), Rio de Janeiro

  44. Norman J, MacLean HL, Kennedy CA (2006) Comparing High and Low Residential Density: Life-Cycle Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. J Urban Plan Dev 132:10–21. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2006)132:1(10)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Østergaard N, Thorsted L, Miraglia S et al (2018) Data Driven Quantification of the Temporal Scope of Building LCAs. Procedia CIRP 69:224–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. PalaciosMunoz B, Peuportier B, GraciaVilla L, LópezMesa B (2019) Sustainability assessment of refurbishment vs. new constructions by means of LCA and durabilitybased estimations of buildings lifespans: a new approach. Build Environ 160:106203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Paleari M, Lavagna M, Campioli A (2016) The assessment of the relevance of building components and life phases for the environmental profile of nearly zero-energy buildings: life cycle assessment of a multifamily building in Italy. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1667–1690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1133-6

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Panesar DK, Seto KE, Churchill CJ (2017) Impact of the selection of functional unit on the life cycle assessment of green concrete. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:1969–1986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1284-0

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Passer A, Kreiner H, Maydl P (2012) Assessment of the environmental performance of buildings: A critical evaluation of the influence of technical building equipment on residential buildings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:1116–1130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0435-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rashid AFA, Yusoff S (2015) A review of life cycle assessment method for building industry. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 45:244–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Rossi B, Marique A-F, Reiter S (2012) Life-cycle assessment of residential buildings in three different European locations, case study. Build Environ 51:402–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ros-Dosdá T, Celades I, Vilalta L et al (2019) Environmental comparison of indoor floor coverings. Sci Total Environ 693:133519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.325

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Saade MRM, Guest G, Amor B (2020) Comparative whole building LCAs: How far are our expectations from the documented evidence? Build Environ 167:106449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Silvestre JD, Silva A, Brito J (2015) Uncertainty modelling of service life and environmental performance to reduce risk in building design decisions. J Civ Eng Manag 21:308–322. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2014.890649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Soust-Verdaguer B, Llatas C, García-Martínez A (2016) Simplification in life cycle assessment of single-family houses: A review of recent developments. Build Environ 103:215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.04.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Souza HHS, Lima ÂMF, Esquerre KO, Kiperstok A (2017) Life cycle assessment of the environmental influence of wooden and concrete utility poles based on service lifetime. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:2030–2041. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1293-z

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. UN (2020) Household Size & Composition, 2019. Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations, New York. https://population.un.org/Household/index.html Accessed  09 April 2020

Download references

Acknowledgments

One of the authors (HS) wishes to thank the UNESCO Chair in Life Cycle and Climate Change (ESCI-UPF) for hosting him during the 2017 academic year, when part of this research was carried out, as well as the “Inova Talentos” RHAE Trainee Program (Euvaldo Lodi Institute) for the grant. The authors are responsible for the choice and presentation of information contained in this paper as well as for the opinions expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit this Organization. We thank the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and the Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul (UFMS), especially the Environmental Technologies Postgraduate Program (PGTA) at UFMS. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions.

Funding

This study was financed in part by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) - Finance Code 001 (grant process number: 88887.466854/2019-00; 88882.453459/2019-01; 1572275) and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). The funding sources had no involvement with the research.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hugo Henrique de Simone Souza.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Communicated by Alexander Passer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Simone Souza, H.H., de Abreu Evangelista, P.P., Medeiros, D.L. et al. Functional unit influence on building life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01854-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Environmental performance
  • Life cycle assessment
  • Carbon footprint
  • Construction sector
  • Residence
  • Functional unit
  • Uncertainty