IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i22p9579-d446601.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of a Life Cycle Assessment Allocation Approach for Circular Economy in the Built Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Leonora Charlotte Malabi Eberhardt

    (Department of the Built Environment, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15, 2450 Copenhagen, Denmark)

  • Anne van Stijn

    (Department of Management in the Built Environment, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, Julianalaan 134, 2628 BL Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Freja Nygaard Rasmussen

    (Department of the Built Environment, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15, 2450 Copenhagen, Denmark)

  • Morten Birkved

    (SDU Life Cycle Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology and Environmental Technology University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense-M, Denmark)

  • Harpa Birgisdottir

    (Department of the Built Environment, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15, 2450 Copenhagen, Denmark)

Abstract

Transitioning the built environment to a circular economy (CE) is vital to achieve sustainability goals but requires metrics. Life cycle assessment (LCA) can analyse the environmental performance of CE. However, conventional LCA methods assess individual products and single life cycles whereas circular assessment requires a systems perspective as buildings, components and materials potentially have multiple use and life cycles. How should benefits and burdens be allocated between life cycles? This study compares four different LCA allocation approaches: (a) the EN 15804/15978 cut-off approach, (b) the Circular Footprint Formula (CFF), (c) the 50:50 approach, and (d) the linearly degressive (LD) approach. The environmental impacts of four ‘circular building components’ is calculated: (1) a concrete column and (2) a timber column both designed for direct reuse, (3) a recyclable roof felt and (4) a window with a reusable frame. Notable differences in impact distributions between the allocation approaches were found, thus incentivising different CE principles. The LD approach was found to be promising for open and closed-loop systems within a closed loop supply chain (such as the ones assessed here). A CE LD approach was developed to enhance the LD approach’s applicability, to closer align it with the CE concept, and to create an incentive for CE in the industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonora Charlotte Malabi Eberhardt & Anne van Stijn & Freja Nygaard Rasmussen & Morten Birkved & Harpa Birgisdottir, 2020. "Development of a Life Cycle Assessment Allocation Approach for Circular Economy in the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9579-:d:446601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9579/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9579/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Max Rehberger & Michael Hiete, 2020. "Allocation of Environmental Impacts in Circular and Cascade Use of Resources—Incentive-Driven Allocation as a Prerequisite for Cascade Persistence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-28, May.
    2. Nasir, Mohammed Haneef Abdul & Genovese, Andrea & Acquaye, Adolf A. & Koh, S.C.L. & Yamoah, Fred, 2017. "Comparing linear and circular supply chains: A case study from the construction industry," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(PB), pages 443-457.
    3. Alexander Dahlsrud, 2008. "How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, January.
    4. Pedro Nuñez-Cacho & Jaroslaw Górecki & Valentín Molina-Moreno & Francisco A. Corpas-Iglesias, 2018. "What Gets Measured, Gets Done: Development of a Circular Economy Measurement Scale for Building Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-22, July.
    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. Ivan Deviatkin & Sanna Rousu & Malahat Ghoreishi & Mohammad Naji Nassajfar & Mika Horttanainen & Ville Leminen, 2022. "Implementation of Circular Economy Strategies within the Electronics Sector: Insights from Finnish Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-11, March.
    2. Kai Liu & Chunfa Li & Runde Gu, 2021. "Pricing and Logistics Service Decisions in Platform-Led Electronic Closed-Loop Supply Chain with Remanufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-28, October.
    3. Héctor Hernández & Felipe Ossio & Michael Silva, 2023. "Assessment of Sustainability and Efficiency Metrics in Modern Methods of Construction: A Case Study Using a Life Cycle Assessment Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-25, April.
    4. Sarah C. Andersen & Harpa Birgisdottir & Morten Birkved, 2022. "Life Cycle Assessments of Circular Economy in the Built Environment—A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-31, June.
    5. Antwi-Afari, Prince & Ng, S. Thomas & Chen, Ji, 2023. "Determining the optimal partition system of a modular building from a circular economy perspective: A multicriteria decision-making process," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    6. Rabaka Sultana & Ahmad Rashedi & Taslima Khanam & Byongug Jeong & Homa Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha & Majid Hussain, 2022. "Life Cycle Environmental Sustainability and Energy Assessment of Timber Wall Construction: A Comprehensive Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-30, March.
    7. Leonora Charlotte Malabi Eberhardt & Anne van Stijn & Liv Kristensen Stranddorf & Morten Birkved & Harpa Birgisdottir, 2021. "Environmental Design Guidelines for Circular Building Components: The Case of the Circular Building Structure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-27, May.
    8. Harrison Huang & Lu Li, 2022. "Study Reviews and Rethinking the Key Processes for Managing Building Materials to Enhance the Circular Economy in the AEC Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, September.
    9. Bas Wouterszoon Jansen & Anne van Stijn & Vincent Gruis & Gerard van Bortel, 2022. "Cooking Up a Circular Kitchen: A Longitudinal Study of Stakeholder Choices in the Development of a Circular Building Component," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-20, November.
    10. Cyrine Mrad & Luís Frölén Ribeiro, 2022. "A Review of Europe’s Circular Economy in the Building Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), 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. Rodríguez, Rosa M. & Labella, Álvaro & Nuñez-Cacho, Pedro & Molina-Moreno, Valentin & Martínez, Luis, 2022. "A comprehensive minimum cost consensus model for large scale group decision making for circular economy measurement," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    2. Hossain, Md. Uzzal & Ng, S. Thomas & Antwi-Afari, Prince & Amor, Ben, 2020. "Circular economy and the construction industry: Existing trends, challenges and prospective framework for sustainable construction," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    3. Leonora Charlotte Malabi Eberhardt & Anne van Stijn & Liv Kristensen Stranddorf & Morten Birkved & Harpa Birgisdottir, 2021. "Environmental Design Guidelines for Circular Building Components: The Case of the Circular Building Structure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-27, May.
    4. Debora Scarpato & Gennaro Civero & Vincenzo Rusciano & Marcello Risitano, 2020. "Sustainable strategies and corporate social responsibility in the Italian fisheries companies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 2983-2990, November.
    5. Sapanna Laysiriroj & Walter Wehrmeyer, 2020. "Intergenerational differences of CSR activities in family-run businesses in eastern Thailand," Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-15, December.
    6. Ivan Hilliard, 2013. "Responsible Management, Incentive Systems, and Productivity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 365-377, December.
    7. Zhonghua Zhao & Fanchen Meng & Yin He & Zhouyang Gu, 2019. "The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on Competitive Advantage with Multiple Mediations from Social Capital and Dynamic Capabilities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
    8. David Benjamin Billedeau & Jeffrey Wilson & Naima Samuel, 2022. "From Responsibility to Requirement: COVID, Cars, and the Future of Corporate Social Responsibility in Canada," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, May.
    9. Chris Hydock & Neeru Paharia & T. J. Weber, 2019. "The Consumer Response to Corporate Political Advocacy: a Review and Future Directions," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 6(3), pages 76-83, December.
    10. Luger, Michaela & Hofer, Katharina Maria & Floh, Arne, 2022. "Support for corporate social responsibility among generation Y consumers in advanced versus emerging markets," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(2).
    11. Francesco Gangi & Antonio Meles & Eugenio D'Angelo & Lucia Michela Daniele, 2019. "Sustainable development and corporate governance in the financial system: Are environmentally friendly banks less risky?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 529-547, May.
    12. Maria del Mar Miras & Bernabe Escobar & Amalia Carrasco, 2014. "Are Spanish Listed Firms Betting on CSR during the Crisis? Evidence from the Agency Problem," Business and Management Research, Business and Management Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 3(1), pages 85-95, March.
    13. Francesco Gangi & Mario Mustilli & Nicola Varrone & Lucia Michela Daniele, 2018. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Banks’ Financial Performance," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(10), pages 42-58, October.
    14. Hsueh, Che-Fu, 2014. "Improving corporate social responsibility in a supply chain through a new revenue sharing contract," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 214-222.
    15. Halit Gonenc & Bert Scholtens, 2019. "Responsibility and Performance Relationship in the Banking Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-49, June.
    16. Alena Kocmanová & Marie Pavláková Dočekalová & Tomáš Meluzín & Stanislav Škapa, 2020. "Sustainable Investing Model for Decision Makers (Based On Research of Manufacturing Industry in the Czech Republic)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-27, October.
    17. Veronica Devenin & Constanza Bianchi, 2018. "Soccer fields? What for? Effectiveness of corporate social responsibility initiatives in the mining industry," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 866-879, September.
    18. Juan Carlos Bárcena‐Ruiz & Amagoia Sagasta, 2021. "Cross‐ownership and corporate social responsibility," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 89(4), pages 367-384, July.
    19. Sarah C. Andersen & Harpa Birgisdottir & Morten Birkved, 2022. "Life Cycle Assessments of Circular Economy in the Built Environment—A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-31, June.
    20. Francesco Aiello & Paola Cardamone & Lidia Mannarino & Valeria Pupo, 2021. "Green patenting and corporate social responsibility: Does family involvement in business matter?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1386-1396, July.

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9579-:d:446601. 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.