Renger, B C; Birkeland, J L and Midmore, D J (2015) Net-positive building carbon sequestration. Building Research & Information, 43(1), pp. 11-24. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
A greater appreciation of architecture as a means to drive social, economic and environmental sustainability is emerging around the world. Practices are beginning to adopt closed-loop and cradle-to-cradle strategies, and some are even aiming toward net-positive design. However, life cycle assessment (LCA) tools do not measure beyond zero. The question of how net-positive carbon sequestration (i.e. impacts beyond net-zero) can be assessed within LCA is explored through a proposed carbon amortization performance (CAP) method. CAP overlays energy-related carbon and biomass sequestration over the building life cycle. CO2 equivalence (CO2e) is used to combine both positive and negative impacts from different sources. Net-positive contributions are defined as those exceeding zero operational carbon - after the embodied carbon is paid back during the life cycle. The CAP method was tested on a building design with the technical support of multidisciplinary experts. The results indicate that a building can sequester more carbon over its life cycle than it emits by using on-site current renewable energy technology and extensive building-integrated vegetation. Buildings designed on net-positive development principles can potentially reverse their carbon impact and begin to regenerate their regions, while providing multiple eco-services.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | buildings; carbon sequestration; CO2 equivalence; ecosystem services; life cycle; net-positive; regenerative design; sustainable design |
| Index terms: | life cycle, ecosystem services, life cycle assessment, strategy, building life cycle, sustainable design, sequestration, building design, regenerative design, embodied carbon, renewable energy, operational carbon, environmental sustainability, positive development |
| Subjects: | architectural design, energy systems, sustainability and energy, climate science, value management, environmental impact, asset management, design process, urban design, health safety and environment, biodiversity, management |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Urban Studies, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Project Management |
| 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