Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector?

dc.contributorAalto-yliopistofi
dc.contributorAalto Universityen
dc.contributor.authorSäynäjoki, Anttien_US
dc.contributor.authorHeinonen, Jukkaen_US
dc.contributor.authorJunnila, Seppoen_US
dc.contributor.authorHorvath, Arpaden_US
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Built Environmenten
dc.contributor.groupauthorReal Estateen
dc.contributor.organizationUniversity of California, Berkeleyen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-20T10:11:25Z
dc.date.available2017-04-20T10:11:25Z
dc.date.issued2017-01-01en_US
dc.description.abstractLife-cycle assessment (LCA) is an established methodology that can provide decision-makers with comprehensive data on the environmental impacts of products and processes during the entire life cycle. However, the literature on building LCAs consists of highly varying results between the studies, even when the assessed buildings are very similar. This makes it doubtful if LCA can actually produce reliable data for supporting policy-making in the building sector. However, no prior reviews looking into this issue in the building sector exist. This study includes an extensive literature review of LCA studies on the pre-use phase of buildings. The purpose of this study is to analyze the variation between the results of different studies and find out whether the differences can be explained by the contextual differences or if it is actually the methodological choices that cause the extremely high variation. We present 116 cases from 47 scientific articles and reports that used process LCA, input-output (IO) LCA or hybrid LCA to study the construction-phase GHG emissions of buildings. The results of the reviewed studies vary between 0.03 and 2.00 tons of GHG emissions per gross area. The lowest was assessed with process LCA and highest with IO LCA, and in general the lower end was found to be dominated by process LCA studies and the higher end by IO LCA studies, hybrid LCAs being placed in between. In general, it is the methodological issues and subjective choices of the LCA practitioner that cause the vast majority of the huge variance in the results. It thus seems that currently the published building LCAs do not offer solid background information for policy-making without deep understanding of the premises of a certain study and good methodological knowledge.en
dc.description.versionPeer revieweden
dc.format.extent17
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_US
dc.identifier.citationSäynäjoki, A, Heinonen, J, Junnila, S & Horvath, A 2017, ' Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector? ', Environmental Research Letters, vol. 12, no. 1, 013001 . https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa54eeen
dc.identifier.doi10.1088/1748-9326/aa54eeen_US
dc.identifier.issn1748-9318
dc.identifier.issn1748-9326
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 07948a96-4bc8-49f1-a305-604d4a978116en_US
dc.identifier.otherPURE ITEMURL: https://research.aalto.fi/en/publications/07948a96-4bc8-49f1-a305-604d4a978116en_US
dc.identifier.otherPURE LINK: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85011422813&partnerID=8YFLogxKen_US
dc.identifier.otherPURE FILEURL: https://research.aalto.fi/files/11503922/S_yn_joki_2017_Environ._Res._Lett._12_013001.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/25187
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi:aalto-201704203617
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERSen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesVolume 12, issue 1en
dc.rightsopenAccessen
dc.subject.keywordbuildingen_US
dc.subject.keywordconstructionen_US
dc.subject.keywordembodieden_US
dc.subject.keywordGHG emissionsen_US
dc.subject.keywordlife cycle assessmenten_US
dc.subject.keywordliterature reviewen_US
dc.titleCan life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector?en
dc.typeA2 Katsausartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessäfi
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion
Files