Rasmussen, F N; Ganassali, S; Zimmermann, R K; Lavagna, M; Campioli, A and Birgisdóttir, H (2019) LCA benchmarks for residential buildings in Northern Italy and Denmark: Learnings from comparing two different contexts. Building Research & Information, 47(7), pp. 833-849. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This study provides LCA reference benchmarks for residential buildings in Northern Italy and Denmark. Furthermore, the benchmark derivation process is analysed to highlight the trade-offs that relate to the methodological choices made by benchmark developers, considering the objectives of the stakeholders. Reference benchmarks for the two contexts are calculated based on national samples of residential buildings. A comparative analysis pinpoints the methodological factors regarding system boundaries, inventory requirements and databases that, from a calculation aspect, affect the benchmarks. Results thus highlight the uniqueness of each benchmarking system put into practice, and emphasize the need for clear calculation rules and transparency within each benchmark system. The identified trade-offs from the derivation process furthermore indicate the inherent need to balance the different interests relating to the stakeholders' roles when applying the benchmark. The mapping of different trade-offs presented in this study provides benchmark stakeholders with an overview that allows for open discussion about which priorities and choices will fit a specific context of benchmark application.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benchmarking; embodied impacts; LCA practice; life cycle assessment; residential buildings; trade-offs |
| Index terms: | benchmarking, boundaries, Denmark, Italy, mapping, comparative analysis, life cycle assessment, transparency, database, inventory, residential building |
| Subjects: | environmental impact, construction type, data analysis and analytics, property law, professional development, inventory management, Geography, spatial and geospatial analysis, performance measurement, data management |
| Topics: | Supply Chain Management, Quality Management, Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Information Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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