Chapter 21: Application of the ten LCSA principles of the Life Cycle Initiative: the perspective of the building sector
Restricted access

Due to the complexity of building processes and objects (enormous size and different materials and components), Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) can be challenging to accomplish. This chapter analyses a sample of ten published case studies addressing the building sector and develops an application for one building project in Australia to demonstrate the application of the ten LCSA principles of the Life Cycle Initiative. Results reveal that the ten principals, which are only partially applied in current practice, can enhance the identification of trade-offs between life cycle techniques. Through benchmarking with published systematic reviews, the Aluminium Hybrid Media Façade achieves a ‘medium performance’ LCSA outcome based on the aggregation of key LCSA indicators. Furthermore, a novel visualisation approach termed Life Cycle Sustainability Tracker (LCST) is developed to effectively communicate the results, especially to a non-expert audience, and visually highlight the aggregated outcome of the LCSA analysis.

  • Adams M, Burrows V, Czerwinska D (2020) Advancing Net Zero – Asia Pacific Embodied Primer. World Green Building Council, London.

  • Arzoumanidis I, Manuela D, Andrea R, Luigia P (2020) Functional unit definition criteria in life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment: A discussion. In: Traverso M, Petti L, Zamgani A (eds) Perspectives on Social LCA. Springer, Cham, pp. 1–10

  • Balasbaneh AT, Sher W (2021) Comparative sustainability evaluation of two engineered wood-based construction materials: Life cycle analysis of CLT versus GLT. Building and Environment, 204, 108112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108112.

  • Betsi G (2021) Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Energy Renovations. A Case-Study of a Multi-Family Building in Sweden. Master’s Thesis. Lund University, Sweden.

  • BSI (2010) BS EN 15643–1. Sustainability of Construction Works – Sustainability Assessment of Buildings – Part 1: General Framework. British Standards Institution (BSI).

  • Caruso MC, Menna C, Asprone D, Prota A, Manfredi G (2017) Methodology for life-cycle sustainability assessment of building structures. ACI Structural Journal, 114(2), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.14359/51689426.

  • CEN (2011) EN 15978. Sustainability Assessment of Construction Works – Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings – Calculation Method. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels.

  • CoreLogic (2017) Cordell Commercial Building Cost Guide, July 2017 ed., 3, CoreLogic, Sydney.

  • Crawford RH (2011) Life Cycle Assessment in the Built Environment. Spon Press, London.

  • Dong YH, Ng ST (2016) A modelling framework to evaluate the sustainability of building construction based on LCSA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21, 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1044-6.

  • Dong Y, Ng ST, Liu P (2021) A comprehensive analysis towards benchmarking of life cycle assessment of buildings based on systematic review. Building and Environment, 204, 108162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108162.

  • Ferrari AM, Volpi L, Pini M, Siligardi C, García-Muiña FE, Settembre-Blundo D (2019) Building a sustainability benchmarking framework of ceramic tiles based on life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). Resources, 8, 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8010011.

  • Francis A, Thomas A (2022) A framework for dynamic life cycle sustainability assessment and policy analysis of built environment through a system dynamics approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 76, 103521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103521.

  • Globa A, Costin G, Tokede O, Wang R, Khoo CK, Moloney J (2022). Hybrid kinetic facade: Fabrication and feasibility evaluation of full-scale prototypes. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 18(6), 791–811.

  • Goh BH, Sun Y (2016). The development of life-cycle costing for buildings. Building Research and Information, 44(3), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.993566.

  • ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization.

  • ISO 15686–5 (2008) Building and Constructed Assets – Service Life Planning – Part 5: Life-Cycle Costing. International Organization for Standardization.

  • Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13, 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2008.02.376.

  • Liu S (2019) Development of a Building-Specific Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment Model. Doctoral Thesis. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

  • Neugebauer S, Forin S, Finkbeiner M (2016) From life cycle costing to economic life cycle assessment – introducing an economic impact pathway. Sustainability, 8, 428. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050428.

  • Ostermeyer Y, Wallbaum H, Reuter F (2013) Multidimensional Pareto optimization as an approach for site-specific building refurbishment solutions applicable for life cycle sustainability assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1762–1779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0548-6.

  • Pombo O, Rivela B, Neila J (2019) Life cycle thinking toward sustainable development policy-making: The case of energy retrofits. Journal of Cleaner Production, 206, 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.173.

  • Scope C, Guenther E, Schütz J, Mielecke T, Mündecke E, Schultze K, Saling P (2020) Aiming for life cycle sustainability assessment of cement‐based composites: A trend study for wall systems of carbon concrete: Dresden Nexus Conference 2020 – Session 4 – Circular economy for building with secondary construction materials to minimise resource use and land use. Civil Engineering Design, 2, 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/cend.202000024.

  • Tokede OO, Globa, A (2024) Life cycle sustainability tracker: A dynamic approach. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-07-2023-0680.

  • Tokede OO, Love PE, Ahiaga-Dagbui DD (2018) Life cycle option appraisal in retrofit buildings. Energy and Buildings, 178, 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.08.034.

  • Tokede O, Rodgers G, Waschl B, Salter J, Asharaf M (2022) Harmonising life cycle sustainability thinking in material substitution for buildings. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 185, 106468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106468.

  • Tokede OO, Roetzel A, Ruge G (2021) A holistic life cycle sustainability evaluation of a building project. Sustainable Cities and Society, 73, 103107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103107.

  • Tokede, OO, Traverso M (2020). Implementing the guidelines for social life cycle assessment: Past, present, and future. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25, 1910–1929. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01814-9.

  • UNEP (2013). The Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). United Nations Environment Programme/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative.

  • UNEP (2020) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Life Cycle Initiative. http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1164xPA-guidelines_sLCA.pdf.

  • Valdivia S et al. (2021) Principles for the application of life cycle sustainability assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26, 1900–1905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01958-2.

  • Valdivia S, Ugaya CM, Hildenbrand J, Traverso M, Mazijn B, Sonnemann G (2013) A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment – our contribution to Rio+ 20. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1673–1685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0529-1.

  • Zamgani A, Pesonen H-L, Swarr T (2013) Life cycle sustainability assessment: Concept, practice and future directions. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1637–1641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0648-3.

  • Zuo J et al. (2017) Green building evaluation from a life-cycle perspective in Australia: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.251.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Other access options

Redeem Token

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institutional Access

Personal login

Log in with your Elgar Online account

Login with your Elgar account
Handbook