Article, 2023
Carbon footprint assessment of a wood multi-residential building considering biogenic carbon
Journal of Cleaner Production,
ISSN
1879-1786,
0959-6526,
Volume 404,
Page 136834,
10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136834
Contributors
Ouellet-Plamondon, Claudiane M
0000-0003-3795-4791
(Corresponding author)
[1]
Ramseier, Livia
[2]
Balouktsi, Maria
0000-0003-2871-5887
[3]
[4]
Delem, Laetitia
0000-0001-7862-6837
[5]
Foliente, Greg C
0000-0003-1968-4978
[6]
Francart, Nicolas
0000-0001-8415-7168
[3]
[7]
García-Martínez, Antonio
0000-0003-4883-2386
[8]
Hoxha, Endrit
0000-0002-1510-9266
[3]
[9]
Lützkendorf, Thomas
[4]
Rasmussen, Freja Nygaard
0000-0002-9168-2021
[3]
Peuportier, Bruno
0000-0002-1085-3280
[10]
Butler, Jarred
[11]
Birgisdottir, Harpa
0000-0001-7642-4107
[3]
Dowdell, David
[11]
Dixit, Manish Kumar
0000-0001-8622-8388
[12]
Gomes, Vanessa
0000-0003-3246-7150
[13]
Da Silva, Maristela Gomes
[14]
De Cózar, Juan Carlos Gómez
[8]
Wiik, Marianne Kjendseth
0000-0001-9365-9434
[15]
Llatas, Carmen
0000-0001-5690-7005
[8]
Mateus, Ricardo
[16]
Pulgrossi, Lizzie Monique
0000-0002-4625-3017
[13]
Röck, Martin
0000-0003-2940-1230
[9]
[17]
Saade, Marcella Ruschi Mendes
[9]
Passer, Alexander
0000-0001-8773-8507
[9]
Satola, Daniel
0000-0002-3237-9428
[18]
Seo, Seongwon
[6]
Verdaguer, Bernardette Soust
[8]
[9]
Veselka, Jakub
0000-0002-5108-6575
[19]
Volf, Martin
0000-0003-1839-1102
[19]
Zhang, Xiaojin
0000-0001-5639-6284
[20]
[21]
Frischknecht, Rolf
0000-0001-6376-0355
[2]
Affiliations
- [1]
École de Technologie Supérieure
[NORA names:
Canada; America, North; OECD];
- [2]
Treeze (Switzerland)
[NORA names:
Switzerland; Europe, Non-EU; OECD];
- [3]
Aalborg University
[NORA names:
AAU Aalborg University; University; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
- [4]
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
[NORA names:
Germany; Europe, EU; OECD];
- [5]
Belgian Building Research Institute
[NORA names:
Belgium; Europe, EU; OECD];
(... more)
- [6]
University of Melbourne
[NORA names:
Australia; Oceania; OECD];
- [7]
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
[NORA names:
Sweden; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
- [8]
University of Seville
[NORA names:
Spain; Europe, EU; OECD];
- [9]
Graz University of Technology
[NORA names:
Austria; Europe, EU; OECD];
- [10]
Mines Paris, PSL Research University, CES, 75272, Paris, France
[NORA names:
France; Europe, EU; OECD];
- [11]
Building Research Association of New Zealand
[NORA names:
New Zealand; Oceania; OECD];
- [12]
Texas A&M University
[NORA names:
United States; America, North; OECD];
- [13]
State University of Campinas
[NORA names:
Brazil; America, South];
- [14]
Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo
[NORA names:
Brazil; America, South];
- [15]
SINTEF
[NORA names:
Norway; Europe, Non-EU; Nordic; OECD];
- [16]
University of Minho
[NORA names:
Portugal; Europe, EU; OECD];
- [17]
KU Leuven
[NORA names:
Belgium; Europe, EU; OECD];
- [18]
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
[NORA names:
Norway; Europe, Non-EU; Nordic; OECD];
- [19]
Czech Technical University in Prague
[NORA names:
Czechia; Europe, EU; OECD];
- [20]
ETH Zurich
[NORA names:
Switzerland; Europe, Non-EU; OECD];
- [21]
Paul Scherrer Institute
[NORA names:
Switzerland; Europe, Non-EU; OECD]
(less)
Abstract
Wood and other bio-based building materials are often perceived as a good choice from a climate mitigation perspective. This article compares the life cycle assessment of the same multi-residential building from the perspective of 16 countries participating in the international project Annex 72 of the International Energy Agency to determine the effects of different datasets and methods of accounting for biogenic carbon in wood construction. Three assessment methods are herein considered: two recognized in the standards (the so-called 0/0 method and −1/+1 method) and a variation of the latter (−1/+1* method) used in Australia, Canada, France, and New Zealand. The 0/0 method considers neither fixation in the production stage nor releases of biogenic carbon at the end of a wood product's life. In contrast, the −1/+1 method accounts for the fixation of biogenic carbon in the production stage and its release in the end-of-life stage, irrespective of the disposal scenario (recycling, incineration or landfill). The −1/+1 method assumes that landfills offer only a temporary sequestration of carbon. In the −1/+1* variation, landfills and recycling are considered a partly permanent sequestration of biogenic carbon and thus fewer emissions are accounted for in the end-of-life stage. We examine the variability of the calculated life cycle-based greenhouse gas emissions calculated for a case study building by each participating country, within the same assessment method and across the methods. The results vary substantially. The main reasons for deviations are whether or not landfills and recycling are considered a partly permanent sequestration of biogenic carbon and a mismatch in the biogenic carbon balance. Our findings support the need for further research and to develop practical guidelines to harmonize life cycle assessment methods of buildings with bio-based materials.
Keywords
Annex,
Australia,
Canada,
Energy Agency,
France,
International,
International Energy Agency,
New,
New Zealand,
Zealand,
agencies,
assessment,
assessment methods,
balance,
bio-based building materials,
bio-based materials,
biogenic carbonates,
building,
building materials,
carbon,
carbon balance,
carbon footprint assessment,
case study building,
cases,
climate,
construction,
countries,
cycle assessment,
dataset,
deviation,
different datasets,
disposal,
disposal scenarios,
effect,
emission,
end-of-life,
end-of-life stage,
findings,
fixation,
footprint assessment,
gas emissions,
greenhouse gas emissions,
guidelines,
landfill,
life,
life cycle assessment,
life cycle assessment method,
materials,
method,
mismatch,
mitigation perspective,
multi-residential buildings,
participating countries,
permanent sequestration,
perspective,
practice guidelines,
production,
production stage,
productive life,
reasons,
recycling,
release,
research,
results,
scenarios,
sequestration of biogenic carbon,
sequestration of carbon,
stage,
standards,
study building,
temporary sequestration,
variables,
variation,
wood,
wood construction
Funders
Data Provider: Digital Science