IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i5p4387-d1084577.html

Single Score Environmental Performances of Roof Coverings

Author

Listed:
  • Ayşe Bayazıt Subaşı

    (Project and Construction Management, Department of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, 34367 Istanbul, Turkey)

  • Elçin Filiz Taş

    (Project and Construction Management, Department of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, 34367 Istanbul, Turkey)

Abstract

Buildings and constructions are responsible for a great amount of global energy and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. Because of these negative impacts, there is an increase in Life cycle assessment research in the construction sector to measure these effects and evaluate the sustainability performances. Life cycle assessment is a tool that can facilitate the decision-making process in the construction sector for material selection, or for the selection of the best environmentally friendly option in the building component level or building level. In this study, a comparative life cycle assessment analysis is conducted among 12 roof coverings of 1 square meter in the 60-year lifetime of a building. Impact categories that are available in environmental product declarations and included in this study are the global warming potential, ozone depletion potential, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, abiotic depletion potential of non-fossils and abiotic depletion potential of fossils resources. To facilitate the decision-making process, panel and monetary weightings are applied to convert environmental product declaration data of seven impact categories into one single-score. Monetary weightings applied in the study are in Euro 2019 , differentiating itself from other comparative life cycle assessment studies. The single-score results are ranked and compared. R04 has the best performance for all panel weightings, while for monetary weightings, R03, R07 and R08 have the best performance for EPS, MMG and EVR, respectively. As a result, for 12 roof coverings, the weighted results could not address one single roof-covering material for numerous reasons. Among the weighting methods, panel weighting sets show more similarity in ranking results, while monetary-weighting sets results are more diverse.

Suggested Citation

  • Ayşe Bayazıt Subaşı & Elçin Filiz Taş, 2023. "Single Score Environmental Performances of Roof Coverings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:5:p:4387-:d:1084577
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4387/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4387/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hongmei Gu & Shaobo Liang & Francesca Pierobon & Maureen Puettmann & Indroneil Ganguly & Cindy Chen & Rachel Pasternack & Mark Wishnie & Susan Jones & Ian Maples, 2021. "Mass Timber Building Life Cycle Assessment Methodology for the U.S. Regional Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Weidema, Bo Pedersen, 2009. "Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1591-1598, April.
    3. Rosalie Arendt & Till M. Bachmann & Masaharu Motoshita & Vanessa Bach & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2020. "Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-39, December.
    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. Butler, Amber & Groom, Ben & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2025. "Local people’s preferences for housing development-associated Biodiversity Net Gain in England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    2. Garkoti, Pankaj & Ni, Ji-Qin & Thengane, Sonal K., 2024. "Energy management for maintaining anaerobic digestion temperature in biogas plants," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    3. Angstmann, Marius & Gärtner, Stefan & Angstmann, Marius, 2023. "Abriss, Neubau oder Sanierung - CO₂-Emissionen im Gebäudesektor: Nicht nur sparsamer, sondern auch weniger," Forschung Aktuell 09/2023, Institut Arbeit und Technik (IAT), Westfälische Hochschule, University of Applied Sciences.
    4. Jones, Philip & Hannam, Jacqueline & Collins, Chris, 2026. "Evaluating the economic co-benefits of soil carbon sequestration: The test case of the UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    5. Domenico Buccella & Luciano Fanti & Luca Gori, 2025. "Environmental Policies in a Polluting Duopoly: A Simple Comparison," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 11(3), pages 1387-1412, November.

    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. San Miguel, Guillermo, 2024. "External environmental costs of electricity generation using a life cycle approach: A case study of Spain," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 237(PD).
    2. Vahakn Kabakian & Marcelle McManus, 2024. "From private to social cost-benefit analysis: life cycle environmental impact cost internalization in cement production fuel switching," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(10), pages 25527-25548, October.
    3. Ewelina Olba-Zięty & Jakub Jan Zięty & Mariusz Jerzy Stolarski, 2023. "External Environmental Costs of Solid Biomass Production against the Legal and Political Background in Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-27, May.
    4. Anni Orola & Anna Härri & Jarkko Levänen & Ville Uusitalo & Stig Irving Olsen, 2022. "Assessing WELBY Social Life Cycle Assessment Approach through Cobalt Mining Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-26, September.
    5. Kledja Canaj & Andi Mehmeti & Julio Berbel, 2021. "The Economics of Fruit and Vegetable Production Irrigated with Reclaimed Water Incorporating the Hidden Costs of Life Cycle Environmental Impacts," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-13, September.
    6. Ahlroth, Sofia, 2014. "The use of valuation and weighting sets in environmental impact assessment," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 34-41.
    7. Rosalie Arendt & Till M. Bachmann & Masaharu Motoshita & Vanessa Bach & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2020. "Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-39, December.
    8. Säll, Sarah & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2015. "Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 41-53.
    9. Cátia da Silva & Ana Paula Barbosa‐Póvoa & Ana Carvalho, 2022. "Towards sustainable development: Green supply chain design and planning using monetization methods," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1369-1394, May.
    10. Sara Rajabi Hamedani & Mauro Villarini & Andrea Colantoni & Maurizio Carlini & Massimo Cecchini & Francesco Santoro & Antonio Pantaleo, 2020. "Environmental and Economic Analysis of an Anaerobic Co-Digestion Power Plant Integrated with a Compost Plant," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, May.
    11. Magrini Chiara & Rodriguez Manotas Judit & Gonzalez Torres Maria & Senatore Vincenzo & Gama Caldas Miguel & Kouloumpis Viktor & Maury Thibaut & Amadei Andrea & Venturelli Sara, 2025. "Method for the ranking of potential requirements, based on expected impacts and costs," JRC Research Reports JRC143331, Joint Research Centre.
    12. Henrik Saxe & Signe Loftager Okkels & Jørgen Dejgård Jensen, 2017. "How to Obtain Forty Percent Less Environmental Impact by Healthy, Protein-Optimized Snacks for Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-21, December.
    13. Svetlana Zenchenko & Wadim Strielkowski & Luboš Smutka & Tomáš Vacek & Yana Radyukova & Vladislav Sutyagin, 2022. "Monetization of the Economies as a Priority of the New Monetary Policy in the Face of Economic Sanctions," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, March.
    14. Marisa D.M. Vieira & Thomas C. Ponsioen & Mark J. Goedkoop & Mark A.J. Huijbregts, 2016. "Surplus Cost Potential as a Life Cycle Impact Indicator for Metal Extraction," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, January.
    15. Algunaibet, Ibrahim M. & Pozo, Carlos & Galán-Martín, Ángel & Guillén-Gosálbez, Gonzalo, 2019. "Quantifying the cost of leaving the Paris Agreement via the integration of life cycle assessment, energy systems modeling and monetization," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 588-601.
    16. Marianne Thomsen & Daina Romeo & Dario Caro & Michele Seghetta & Rong-Gang Cong, 2018. "Environmental-Economic Analysis of Integrated Organic Waste and Wastewater Management Systems: A Case Study from Aarhus City (Denmark)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    17. Roberta Olindo & Joost G. Vogtländer, 2019. "The Role of Hydrogen in the Ecological Benefits of Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel Production and Use: An LCA Benchmark," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, April.
    18. Benedetta Nucci & Fabio Iraldo & Maria Rosa De Giacomo, 2016. "The relevance of Life Cycle Costing in Green Public Procurement," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(1), pages 91-109.
    19. Ewelina Olba-Zięty & Mariusz Jerzy Stolarski & Michał Krzyżaniak & Kazimierz Warmiński, 2020. "Willow Cultivation as Feedstock for Bioenergy-External Production Cost," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-17, September.
    20. Sara Rajabi Hamedani & Tom Kuppens & Robert Malina & Enrico Bocci & Andrea Colantoni & Mauro Villarini, 2019. "Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Valuation of Biochar Production: Two Case Studies in Belgium," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-21, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:15:y:2023:i:5:p:4387-:d:1084577. 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.