Keles, C and Yazicioglu, F (2023) Analyzing the environmental sustainability of primary schools' facades within the scope of life cycle assessment in Turkey and recommendations for improvement. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 12(2), pp. 298-324. ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to identify the sustainability conditions of primary schools in Turkey within the scope of the life cycle assessment (LCA). It is aimed to develop optimum alternatives to reduce the environmental impact of primary schools and reach environmental sustainability targets of the sustainable development goals in Turkey. Design/methodology/approach: From the construction project of 103 buildings located in Istanbul, 10 case buildings with various typical plans were chosen for analysis. The results regarding their life cycle energy and carbon emission for material production, operation and maintenance stages were calculated for a lifespan of 50 years. Results were evaluated and compared within the scope of environmental sustainability. Optimum alternatives for improving the environmental sustainability and performances of selected case buildings' facades were developed, and the life cycle energy and carbon emission for proposed conditions were calculated. The obtained results were evaluated for current and proposed conditions. Findings: Results showed that reinforced concrete material contributes the most to the life cycle-embodied energy and CO2 emission of buildings. Cooling load increases the life cycle operational energy (LCOE) and CO2 emission of buildings. Using high-performance glazing significantly reduces LCOE and CO2 emission. Recycled and fiber-based materials have significant potential for reducing life cycle-embodied energy and CO2 emission. Originality/value: This study has been developed in response to achieving sustainable development targets on public buildings in Turkey. In this regard, external walls of primary schools were analyzed within the scope of LCA and recommendations were made to contribute to the policies and regulations requested by the Government of Turkey. This study proves that alternative and novel materials have great potential for achieving sustainable public buildings. The study answers to questions about reducing the environmental impact of primary school buildings by using LCA approach with a holistic point of view.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | energy efficiency; environmental impact; environmental sustainability; facades; life cycle assessment |
| Index terms: | life cycle energy, Istanbul, public building, environmental sustainability, methodology, construction project, school building, regulation, environmental impact, reinforced concrete, sustainable development, life cycle assessment, lifespan, operation and maintenance, embodied energy, sustainable development goal, life cycle, glazing, energy efficiency, carbon emission, Turkey |
| Subjects: | sustainability and energy, building materials, material degradation and durability, energy systems, construction type, value management, climate science, environmental impact, political science, maintenance engineering, research methods, architectural elements, Geography, health safety and environment, sustainable design, production management |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Construction Technology, Governance, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Construction Materials |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here