Langston, C; Chan, E H W and Yung, E H K (2018) Embodied carbon and construction cost differences between Hong Kong and Melbourne buildings. Construction Economics and Building, 18(4), pp. 84-102. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
Limiting the amount of embodied carbon in buildings can help minimize the damaging impacts of global warming through lower upstream emission of CO2. This study empirically investigates the embodied carbon footprint of new-build and refurbished buildings in both Hong Kong and Melbourne to determine the embodied carbon profile and its relationship to both embodied energy and construction cost. The Hong Kong findings suggest that mean embodied carbon for refurbished buildings is 33-39% lower than new-build projects, and the cost for refurbished buildings is 22-50% lower than new-build projects (per square metre of floor area). The Melbourne findings, however, suggest that mean embodied carbon for refurbished buildings is 4% lower than new-build projects, and the cost for refurbished buildings is 24% higher than new-build projects (per square metre of floor area). Embodied carbon ranges from 645-1,059 kgCO2e/m2 for new-build and 294-655 kgCO2e/m2 for refurbished projects in Hong Kong, and 1,138-1,705 kgCO2e/m2 for new-build and 900-1,681 kgCO2e/m2 for refurbished projects in Melbourne. The reasons behind these locational discrepancies are explored and critiqued. Overall, a very strong linear relationship between embodied energy and construction cost in both cities was found and can be used to predict the former, given the latter.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Hong Kong; melbourne; construction cost; embodied carbon; embodied energy; energy-cost relationship |
| Index terms: | embodied carbon, embodied energy, global warming, construction cost, Hong Kong |
| Subjects: | Geography, financial and cost management, environmental impact, climate science, energy systems |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Geographical Context, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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