Habert, G; Röck, M; Steininger, K; Lupísek, A; Birgisdottir, H; Desing, H; Chandrakumar, C; Pittau, F; Passer, A; Rovers, R; Slavkovic, K; Hollberg, A; Hoxha, E; Jusselme, T; Nault, E; Allacker, K and Lützkendorf, T (2020) Carbon budgets for buildings: Harmonising temporal, spatial and sectoral dimensions. Buildings & Cities, 1(1), pp. 429-452. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Target values for creating carbon budgets for buildings are important for developing climate-neutral building stocks. A lack of clarity currently exists for defining carbon budgets for buildings and what constitutes a unit of assessment—particularly the distinction between production-and consumption-based accounting. These different perspectives on the system and the function that is assessed hinder a clear and commonly agreed definition of 'carbon budgets' for building construction and operation. This paper explores the processes for establishing a carbon budget for residential and non-residential buildings. A detailed review of current approaches to budget allocation is presented. The temporal and spatial scales of evaluation are considered as well as the distribution rules for sharing the budget between parties or activities. This analysis highlights the crucial need to define the temporal scale, the roles of buildings as physical artefacts and their economic activities. A framework is proposed to accommodate these different perspectives and spatio-temporal scales towards harmonised and comparable cross-sectoral budget definitions. Policy relevance The potential to develop, implement and monitor greenhouse gas-related policies and strategies for buildings will depend on the provision of clear targets. Based on global limits, a carbon budget can establish system boundaries and scalable targets. An operational framework is presented that clarifies greenhouse gas targets for buildings in the different parts of the world that is adaptable to the context and circumstances of a particular place. A carbon budget can enable national regulators to set feasible and legally binding requirements. This will assist the many different stakeholders responsible for decisions on buildings to coordinate and incorporate their specific responsibility at one specific level or scale of activity to ensure overall compliance. Therefore, determining a task specific carbon budget requires an appropriate management of the global carbon budget to ensure that specific budgets overlap, but that the sum of them is equal to the available global budget without double-counting.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building stock; buildings; built environment; carbon budget; climate policy; greenhouse gases; mitigation |
| Index terms: | built environment, mitigation, artefact, boundaries, greenhouse gas, non-residential building, economic activity, dimension, consumption, accounting, climate policy, compliance, regulator, strategy, building construction, building stock |
| Subjects: | consumer economics, climate science, construction type, property law, health monitoring assessment and metrics, economic analysis, climate policy, health safety and environment, financial risk, management, infrastructure and transport systems, sociology, asset management, building construction |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Urban Studies, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, 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