Ekundayo, D; Babatunde, S O; Ekundayo, A; Perera, S and Udeaja, C (2019) Life cycle carbon emissions and comparative evaluation of selected open source UK embodied carbon counting tools. Construction Economics and Building, 19(2), pp. 220-242. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
Life cycle carbon emissions (LCO2), made up of operational and embodied carbon, have become a major metric of building environmental performance and energy efficiency. Whilst there are now standard methods for operational carbon assessment due to its significance in LCO2, there is still less emphasis on embodied carbon counting. However, the relative contribution of embodied carbon is on the rise as buildings become increasingly energy efficient. Following the rule that only something which is measurable is manageable, it is essential that we are able to accurately count embodied carbon. This study therefore reviews the concept of LCO2 in buildings and further investigates the open source UK tools for embodied carbon counting. A comparative evaluation case study, which validates an earlier review, showed that there is no logic and consistency in the carbon figures produced by embodied carbon counting tools. This is mainly due to different system boundaries, varying underlying assumptions and methodological differences in calculation. The findings suggest that an industry-agreed data structure and common methodology is needed for embodied carbon counting. Generally, the study provides insights into the use and capabilities of the identified open source UK embodied carbon counting tools, and is relevant to the on-going debate about carbon regulation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | UK; carbon counting tools; embodied carbon; life cycle carbon emissions; operational carbon; system boundaries |
| Index terms: | data structure, operational carbon, boundaries, methodology, regulation, life cycle, environmental performance, embodied carbon, energy efficiency, case study, carbon emission |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, environmental impact, climate science, value management, sustainability and energy, data science, property law, sustainability assessment, research methods, political science |
| Topics: | Governance, Sustainability, Project Management, Research Practice, Digital Applications, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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