Malabi Eberhardt, L C; Kuittinen, M; Häkkinen, T; Moinel, C; Nibel, S and Birgisdottir, H (2024) Carbon handprint: A review of potential climate benefits of buildings. Building Research & Information, 52(6), pp. 708-723. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
As buildings account for 39% of greenhouse gas emissions, the building sector is essential for pursuing carbon neutrality. Carbon footprints of buildings are currently emerging in the legislation of European countries. However, the concept of carbon neutrality calls for both reducing emissions and increasing carbon sinks and storages. The concept of 'carbon handprint' describes potential climate benefits that are related to a product, service, or an organization. Although an increasing body of scientific and professional literature exist on the concept, there are no standards for guiding its quantification in the context of buildings. Furthermore, examples demonstrating the potential of building related carbon handprints are still scarce. In this article, we examine and evaluate different climate benefits that can be utilized in life-cycle assessment of buildings. We test them through a case study of a wooden apartment building. Our results indicate that methodologically most mature handprints include carbon storage in bio-based products, carbonation of concrete, surplus energy, as well as reuse, recycling, and energy recovery. In our study, the relative size of the calculated handprints varies considerably between 39% and 87% of the building's footprint. However, uncertainties and methodological development needs should be addressed in the standardization work.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | buildings; carbon footprint; carbon handprint; greenhouse gas emissions; life-cycle assessment; quantification |
| Index terms: | case study, neutrality, quantification, recovery, carbon footprint, carbonation, recycling, standardization, legislation, apartment building, greenhouse gas emission |
| Subjects: | operations management, ethical practice, legal systems, construction type, waste management, environmental impact, materials science, data collection methods, measurement and scaling, environmental health, performance measurement |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Project Management, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Construction Technology, Research Practice, Construction Materials |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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