IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v26y2024i1d10.1007_s10668-022-02707-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic and environmental life cycle assessment of alternative mass timber walls to evaluate circular economy in building: MCDM method

Author

Listed:
  • Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh

    (Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia)

  • Willy Sher

    (The University of Newcastle (UON))

Abstract

The construction industry is one of the largest consumers of energy and materials, which leads to it being one of the highest sources of environmental emissions. Quantifying the impact of building materials is critical if strategies for mitigating environmental deterioration are to be developed. The lifecycle assessment (LCA) consequential methodology has been applied to evaluate different methods of constructing residential double-story buildings. The ReCiPe methodology has been used for life cycle inventory. Three different forms of mass timber construction have been considered including cross-laminated timber (CLT), nail-laminated timber (NLT), and dowel-laminated timber (DLT). These have been assessed as load-bearing panels or wood frame construction. We evaluated the global warming potential (GWP), embodied energy, and cost to identify the building type with the lowest impacts. The results revealed that total CO2 emissions for mass timbers for the construction stage are 130 CO2/M2, 118 CO2/M2, and 132 CO2/M2 of the panel for CLT, DLT, and NLT, respectively. The embodied energy emission is 1921 MJ/M2, 1902 MJ/M2, and 2130 MJ/M2 related to the CLT, DLT, and NLT, respectively, for this stage. The results also indicated that the carbon emission of DLT is lowest compared to the other two alternatives in the manufacturing and construction stages. However, when the entire life cycle is considered, NLT is the most favorable material. However, based on the life cycle cost (LCC), DLT has a lower cost. Finally, multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) was used to normalize the results and compare the alternatives. This showed DLT to be the best alternative, followed by CLT and NLT. In conclusion, the selection of building materials needs to prioritize regulations to reduce environmental and economic impacts.

Suggested Citation

  • Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh & Willy Sher, 2024. "Economic and environmental life cycle assessment of alternative mass timber walls to evaluate circular economy in building: MCDM method," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 239-268, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10668-022-02707-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-022-02707-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-022-02707-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-022-02707-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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. Chau, C.K. & Leung, T.M. & Ng, W.Y., 2015. "A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 395-413.
    3. Cindy X. Chen & Francesca Pierobon & Indroneil Ganguly, 2019. "Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) Produced in Western Washington: The Role of Logistics and Wood Species Mix," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Shaobo Liang & Hongmei Gu & Richard Bergman, 2021. "Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of a High-Rise Mass Timber Building: A Case Study in Pacific Northwestern United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-16, July.
    5. Petrovic, Bojana & Myhren, Jonn Are & Zhang, Xingxing & Wallhagen, Marita & Eriksson, Ola, 2019. "Life cycle assessment of a wooden single-family house in Sweden," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 251(C), pages 1-1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Shaobo Liang & Hongmei Gu & Richard Bergman, 2021. "Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of a High-Rise Mass Timber Building: A Case Study in Pacific Northwestern United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-16, July.
    2. Insub Choi & JunHee Kim & DongWon Kim, 2020. "LCA-Based Investigation of Environmental Impacts for Novel Double-Beam Floor System Subjected to High Gravity Loads," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, November.
    3. Ida Karlsson & Johan Rootzén & Alla Toktarova & Mikael Odenberger & Filip Johnsson & Lisa Göransson, 2020. "Roadmap for Decarbonization of the Building and Construction Industry—A Supply Chain Analysis Including Primary Production of Steel and Cement," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-40, August.
    4. Meijing Liu & Changqi Liu & Hao Xie & Zhonghui Zhao & Chong Zhu & Yangang Lu & Changsheng Bu, 2023. "Analysis of the Impact of Photovoltaic Curtain Walls Replacing Glass Curtain Walls on the Whole Life Cycle Carbon Emission of Public Buildings Based on BIM Modeling Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-21, October.
    5. Patricia González-Vallejo & Radu Muntean & Jaime Solís-Guzmán & Madelyn Marrero, 2020. "Carbon Footprint of Dwelling Construction in Romania and Spain. A Comparative Analysis with the OERCO2 Tool," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-22, August.
    6. Ana Ferreira & Manuel Duarte Pinheiro & Jorge de Brito & Ricardo Mateus, 2022. "Embodied vs. Operational Energy and Carbon in Retail Building Shells: A Case Study in Portugal," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-23, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Mastrucci, Alessio & Marvuglia, Antonino & Leopold, Ulrich & Benetto, Enrico, 2017. "Life Cycle Assessment of building stocks from urban to transnational scales: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 316-332.
    9. Cindy X. Chen & Francesca Pierobon & Susan Jones & Ian Maples & Yingchun Gong & Indroneil Ganguly, 2021. "Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Mass Timber and Concrete Residential Buildings: A Case Study in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.
    10. Belen Moreno Santamaria & Fernando del Ama Gonzalo & Matthew Griffin & Benito Lauret Aguirregabiria & Juan A. Hernandez Ramos, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment of Dynamic Water Flow Glazing Envelopes: A Case Study with Real Test Facilities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Wang, Zhaohua & Liu, Qiang & Zhang, Bin, 2022. "What kinds of building energy-saving retrofit projects should be preferred? Efficiency evaluation with three-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    12. Liu, Xiuli & Guo, Pibin & Yue, Xiaohang & Qi, Xiaoyan & Guo, Shufeng & Zhou, Xijun, 2021. "Measuring metabolic efficiency of the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei urban agglomeration: A slacks-based measures method," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    13. Zejun Yu & Yao Wang & Bin Zhao & Zhixin Li & Qingli Hao, 2023. "Research on Carbon Emission Structure and Model in Low-Carbon Rural Areas: Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-22, August.
    14. Alberto Bezama & Jakob Hildebrandt & Daniela Thrän, 2021. "Integrating Regionalized Socioeconomic Considerations onto Life Cycle Assessment for Evaluating Bioeconomy Value Chains: A Case Study on Hybrid Wood–Concrete Ceiling Elements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-17, April.
    15. Kong, Minjin & Ji, Changyoon & Hong, Taehoon & Kang, Hyuna, 2022. "Impact of the use of recycled materials on the energy conservation and energy transition of buildings using life cycle assessment: A case study in South Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    16. Claudia Calle Müller & Mohamed ElZomor, 2024. "Addressing Post-Disaster Challenges and Fostering Social Mobility through Origami Infrastructure and Construction Trade Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-17, April.
    17. Craig Langston & Edwin H. W. Chan & Esther H. K. Yung, 2018. "Hybrid Input-Output Analysis of Embodied Carbon and Construction Cost Differences between New-Build and Refurbished Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-15, September.
    18. Rosaria E.C. Amaral & Joel Brito & Matt Buckman & Elicia Drake & Esther Ilatova & Paige Rice & Carlos Sabbagh & Sergei Voronkin & Yewande S. Abraham, 2020. "Waste Management and Operational Energy for Sustainable Buildings: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-21, July.
    19. Bin Huang & Ke Xing & Rameez Rameezdeen, 2023. "Exploring Embodied Carbon Comparison in Lightweight Building Structure Frames: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-16, October.
    20. ZhiWu Zhou & Julián Alcalá & Víctor Yepes, 2020. "Environmental, Economic and Social Impact Assessment: Study of Bridges in China’s Five Major Economic Regions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-33, December.

    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:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10668-022-02707-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.