IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i2p774-d722126.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Study on Life-Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint of Hybrid, Concrete and Timber Apartment Buildings in Finland

Author

Listed:
  • Roni Rinne

    (Faculty of Built Environment, School of Architecture, Tampere University, P.O. Box 600, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland)

  • Hüseyin Emre Ilgın

    (Faculty of Built Environment, School of Architecture, Tampere University, P.O. Box 600, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland)

  • Markku Karjalainen

    (Faculty of Built Environment, School of Architecture, Tampere University, P.O. Box 600, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland)

Abstract

To date, in the literature, there has been no study on the comparison of hybrid (timber and concrete) buildings with counterparts made of timber and concrete as the most common construction materials, in terms of the life cycle assessment (LCA) and the carbon footprint. This paper examines the environmental impacts of a five-story hybrid apartment building compared to timber and reinforced concrete counterparts in whole-building life-cycle assessment using the software tool, One Click LCA, for the estimation of environmental impacts from building materials of assemblies, construction, and building end-of-life treatment of 50 years in Finland. Following EN 15978, stages of product and construction (A1–A5), use (B1–B6), end-of-life (C1–C4), and beyond the building life cycle (D) were assessed. The main findings highlighted are as following: (1) for A1–A3, the timber apartment had the smallest carbon footprint (28% less than the hybrid apartment); (2) in A4, the timber apartment had a much smaller carbon footprint (55% less than the hybrid apartment), and the hybrid apartment had a smaller carbon footprint (19%) than the concrete apartment; (3) for B1–B5, the carbon footprint of the timber apartment was larger (>20%); (4) in C1–C4, the carbon footprint of the concrete apartment had the lowest emissions (35,061 kg CO 2 -e), and the timber apartment had the highest (44,627 kg CO 2 -e), but in D, timber became the most advantageous material; (5) the share of life-cycle emissions from building services was very significant. Considering the environmental performance of hybrid construction as well as its other advantages over timber, wood-based hybrid solutions can lead to more rational use of wood, encouraging the development of more efficient buildings. In the long run, this will result in a higher proportion of wood in buildings, which will be beneficial for living conditions, the environment, and the society in general.

Suggested Citation

  • Roni Rinne & Hüseyin Emre Ilgın & Markku Karjalainen, 2022. "Comparative Study on Life-Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint of Hybrid, Concrete and Timber Apartment Buildings in Finland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-24, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:2:p:774-:d:722126
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/2/774/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/2/774/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhongjia Chen & Hongmei Gu & Richard D. Bergman & Shaobo Liang, 2020. "Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of a High-Rise Mass Timber Building with an Equivalent Reinforced Concrete Alternative Using the Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Kai Kanafani & Regitze Kjær Zimmermann & Freja Nygaard Rasmussen & Harpa Birgisdóttir, 2021. "Learnings from Developing a Context-Specific LCA Tool for Buildings—The Case of LCAbyg 4," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-23, February.
    3. Jenhung Wang & Pei-Chun Lin, 2021. "Should the Same Products Consumed in Different Retail Channels Have an Identical Carbon Footprint? An Environmental Assessment of Consumer Preference of Retail Channels and Mode of Transport," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-12, January.
    4. Yu Dong & Tongyu Qin & Siyuan Zhou & Lu Huang & Rui Bo & Haibo Guo & Xunzhi Yin, 2020. "Comparative Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Saving and Carbon Reduction Performance of Reinforced Concrete and Timber Stadiums—A Case Study in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-24, February.
    5. Markku Karjalainen & Hüseyin Emre Ilgın & Lauri Metsäranta & Markku Norvasuo, 2021. "Suburban Residents’ Preferences for Livable Residential Area in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, October.
    6. Jakub Veselka & Marie Nehasilová & Karolína Dvořáková & Pavla Ryklová & Martin Volf & Jan Růžička & Antonín Lupíšek, 2020. "Recommendations for Developing a BIM for the Purpose of LCA in Green Building Certifications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-17, July.
    7. Markku Karjalainen & Hüseyin Emre Ilgın & Lauri Metsäranta & Markku Norvasuo, 2021. "Residents’ Attitudes towards Wooden Facade Renovation and Additional Floor Construction in Finland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-17, November.
    8. Toppinen, Anne & Röhr, Axel & Pätäri, Satu & Lähtinen, Katja & Toivonen, Ritva, 2018. "The future of wooden multistory construction in the forest bioeconomy – A Delphi study from Finland and Sweden," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 3-10.
    9. Markku Karjalainen & Hüseyin Emre Ilgın & Lassi Tulonen, 2021. "Main Design Considerations and Prospects of Contemporary Tall Timber Apartment Buildings: Views of Key Professionals from Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-18, June.
    10. Thomas Wiedmann & John Barrett, 2010. "A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(6), pages 1-49, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Henriette Fischer & Martin Aichholzer & Azra Korjenic, 2023. "Ecological Potential of Building Components in Multi-Storey Residential Construction: A Comparative Case Study between an Existing Concrete and a Timber Building in Austria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Yan Wang & Xi Wu, 2022. "Research on High-Quality Development Evaluation, Space–Time Characteristics and Driving Factors of China’s Construction Industry under Carbon Emission Constraints," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-19, August.
    3. Laura Corti & Giovanni Muciaccia, 2023. "Stiffness Warming Potential: An Innovative Parameter for Structural and Environmental Assessment of Timber–Concrete Composite Members," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-19, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Markku Karjalainen & Hüseyin Emre Ilgın & Lauri Metsäranta & Markku Norvasuo, 2021. "Residents’ Attitudes towards Wooden Facade Renovation and Additional Floor Construction in Finland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Martyna Maniak-Huesser & Lars G. F. Tellnes & Edwin Zea Escamilla, 2021. "Mind the Gap: A Policy Gap Analysis of Programmes Promoting Timber Construction in Nordic Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Winchester, Niven & Reilly, John M., 2020. "The economic and emissions benefits of engineered wood products in a low-carbon future," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    4. Gaodi Xie & Wenhui Chen & Shuyan Cao & Chunxia Lu & Yu Xiao & Changshun Zhang & Na Li & Shuo Wang, 2014. "The Outward Extension of an Ecological Footprint in City Expansion: The Case of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Heiskanen, Aleksi & Hurmekoski, Elias & Toppinen, Anne & Näyhä, Annukka, 2022. "Exploring the unknowns – State of the art in qualitative forest-based sector foresight research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    6. Marie Nehasilová & Antonín Lupíšek & Petra Lupíšková Coufalová & Tomáš Kupsa & Jakub Veselka & Barbora Vlasatá & Julie Železná & Pavla Kunová & Martin Volf, 2022. "Rapid Environmental Assessment of Buildings: Linking Environmental and Cost Estimating Databases," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, September.
    7. Suranjan Sinha & Surajit Chakraborty & Shatrajit Goswami, 2017. "Ecological footprint: an indicator of environmental sustainability of a surface coal mine," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 807-824, June.
    8. Banerjee, Onil & Crossman, Neville & Vargas, Renato & Brander, Luke & Verburg, Peter & Cicowiez, Martin & Hauck, Jennifer & McKenzie, Emily, 2020. "Global socio-economic impacts of changes in natural capital and ecosystem services: State of play and new modeling approaches," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    9. Muwei Xi & Dingqing Wang & Ye Xiang, 2023. "Fiscal Expenditure on Sports and Regional Carbon Emissions: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-15, May.
    10. Mahboobeh Hemmati & Tahar Messadi & Hongmei Gu, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment of Cross-Laminated Timber Transportation from Three Origin Points," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.
    11. Debrupa Chakraborty & Joyashree Roy, 2015. "Ecological footprint of paperboard and paper production unit in India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 909-921, August.
    12. Min-Chun Yu & Min-Hong Su, 2017. "Using Fuzzy DEA for Green Suppliers Selection Considering Carbon Footprints," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-11, March.
    13. POPESCU Alexandra-Codruta & SIPOS Ciprian Alexandru, 2015. "Green Logistics - A Condition Of Sustainable Development," Revista Economica, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 67(4), pages 112-130.
    14. Regitze Kjær Zimmermann & Simone Bruhn & Harpa Birgisdóttir, 2021. "BIM-Based Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings—An Investigation of Industry Practice and Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-21, May.
    15. Jean-Marc Douguet & Martin O 'Connor & Jean-Pierre Doussoulin & Philippe Lanceleur & Karine Philippot, 2014. "L'Empreinte Écologique Du Parc Naturel De La Haute Vallée De Chevreuse : Du Concept À La Construction De L'Outil," Working Papers hal-01243385, HAL.
    16. Lazarevic, David & Kautto, Petrus & Antikainen, Riina, 2020. "Finland's wood-frame multi-storey construction innovation system: Analysing motors of creative destruction," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    17. Teixidó-Figueras, Jordi & Duro, Juan Antonio, 2015. "The building blocks of International Ecological Footprint inequality: A Regression-Based Decomposition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 30-39.
    18. Gassner, Andreas & Lederer, Jakob & Kanitschar, Georg & Ossberger, Markus & Fellner, Johann, 2018. "Extended ecological footprint for different modes of urban public transport: The case of Vienna, Austria," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 85-99.
    19. Kevin Allan & Adam R. Phillips, 2021. "Comparative Cradle-to-Grave Life Cycle Assessment of Low and Mid-Rise Mass Timber Buildings with Equivalent Structural Steel Alternatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-15, March.
    20. Ting Chang & Degang Yang & Jinwei Huo & Fuqiang Xia & Zhiping Zhang, 2018. "Evaluation of Oasis Sustainability Based on Emergy and Decomposition Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:2:p:774-:d:722126. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.