Input–output and process LCAs in the building sector: are the results compatible with each other?
Buildings are a major contributor to climate change. Use phase has traditionally been the focus area, but the importance of construction-phase has increased with the emergence of energy-efficient buildings. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is arguably the best method to assess and analyze the emissions c...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2017-03-01
|
| Series: | Carbon Management |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2017.1309200 |
| _version_ | 1827811008014450688 |
|---|---|
| author | Antti Säynäjoki Jukka Heinonen Juha-Matti Junnonen Seppo Junnila |
| author_facet | Antti Säynäjoki Jukka Heinonen Juha-Matti Junnonen Seppo Junnila |
| author_sort | Antti Säynäjoki |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Buildings are a major contributor to climate change. Use phase has traditionally been the focus area, but the importance of construction-phase has increased with the emergence of energy-efficient buildings. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is arguably the best method to assess and analyze the emissions caused by buildings. However, within LCA there are two very different approaches – process LCA and input–output (IO) LCA – which lead to different results. When looking at the scale of published LCA results, it is evident that IO LCAs are placed at the top end, and process LCAs at the bottom end. It is thus questionable whether LCA can provide data that can be used for decision-making and policy formation. This study takes a step toward filling this gap by presenting a comparison of process and IO LCA results of the pre-use phase of a residential concrete element building in Finland. Exactly the same scope is utilized in order to maximize comparability. The results depict how the two main LCA methods produce significantly different results. The implications of acknowledging this are discussed. The results fall in midway between the extremes published using the two methods but still deviate from each other by a multiplier of almost 2. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T22:59:25Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-37650bc2d9224c128cea3883785ebc69 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1758-3004 1758-3012 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T22:59:25Z |
| publishDate | 2017-03-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Carbon Management |
| spelling | doaj.art-37650bc2d9224c128cea3883785ebc692023-09-21T15:09:04ZengTaylor & Francis GroupCarbon Management1758-30041758-30122017-03-018215516610.1080/17583004.2017.13092001309200Input–output and process LCAs in the building sector: are the results compatible with each other?Antti Säynäjoki0Jukka Heinonen1Juha-Matti Junnonen2Seppo Junnila3Aalto UniversityUniversity of IcelandTampere University of TechnologyAalto UniversityBuildings are a major contributor to climate change. Use phase has traditionally been the focus area, but the importance of construction-phase has increased with the emergence of energy-efficient buildings. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is arguably the best method to assess and analyze the emissions caused by buildings. However, within LCA there are two very different approaches – process LCA and input–output (IO) LCA – which lead to different results. When looking at the scale of published LCA results, it is evident that IO LCAs are placed at the top end, and process LCAs at the bottom end. It is thus questionable whether LCA can provide data that can be used for decision-making and policy formation. This study takes a step toward filling this gap by presenting a comparison of process and IO LCA results of the pre-use phase of a residential concrete element building in Finland. Exactly the same scope is utilized in order to maximize comparability. The results depict how the two main LCA methods produce significantly different results. The implications of acknowledging this are discussed. The results fall in midway between the extremes published using the two methods but still deviate from each other by a multiplier of almost 2.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2017.1309200life-cycle assessmentinput–output lcaprocess lcaghg emissionsconstruction |
| spellingShingle | Antti Säynäjoki Jukka Heinonen Juha-Matti Junnonen Seppo Junnila Input–output and process LCAs in the building sector: are the results compatible with each other? Carbon Management life-cycle assessment input–output lca process lca ghg emissions construction |
| title | Input–output and process LCAs in the building sector: are the results compatible with each other? |
| title_full | Input–output and process LCAs in the building sector: are the results compatible with each other? |
| title_fullStr | Input–output and process LCAs in the building sector: are the results compatible with each other? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Input–output and process LCAs in the building sector: are the results compatible with each other? |
| title_short | Input–output and process LCAs in the building sector: are the results compatible with each other? |
| title_sort | input output and process lcas in the building sector are the results compatible with each other |
| topic | life-cycle assessment input–output lca process lca ghg emissions construction |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2017.1309200 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT anttisaynajoki inputoutputandprocesslcasinthebuildingsectoraretheresultscompatiblewitheachother AT jukkaheinonen inputoutputandprocesslcasinthebuildingsectoraretheresultscompatiblewitheachother AT juhamattijunnonen inputoutputandprocesslcasinthebuildingsectoraretheresultscompatiblewitheachother AT seppojunnila inputoutputandprocesslcasinthebuildingsectoraretheresultscompatiblewitheachother |