Wiik, M K (2025) Developing whole-life carbon benchmark values for Norwegian buildings. Building Research & Information, 53(3), pp. 345-358. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Recent years have seen an increased focus on reducing embodied greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from buildings. This is exemplified by the race to develop national roadmaps and GHG limit values for buildings. In this study, 186 existing Norwegian LCA building case studies are collected, analyzed, and presented to ascertain WLC benchmark values for Norwegian buildings. The results are shown for different building typologies, per life cycle module, and per building part. The results also show the development of GHG emissions from Norwegian buildings over time and give a projection of GHG emission limit values towards 2030 and 2050. The results can be used by policy makers in the development of national roadmaps and WLC limit values for buildings.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building; embodied carbon; life cycle assessment; limit value; roadmap |
| Index terms: | module, case study, life cycle assessment, greenhouse gas, embodied carbon, life cycle, building typology |
| Subjects: | architectural elements, value management, data collection methods, construction type, environmental impact, climate science |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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