Marsh, R (2017) Building lifespan: Effect on the environmental impact of building components in a Danish perspective. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 13(2), pp. 80-100. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
Construction professionals must now integrate environmental concerns with life cycle assessment (LCA) early in the procurement process. Building lifespan is important to LCA, since results must be normalized on an annualized basis for comparison. However, the scientific literature shows that issues of building lifespan are inadequately addressed. The aim of this research is therefore to explore how environmental impact from building components is affected by building lifespans of 50, 80, 100 and 120 years in a Danish context. LCAs are undertaken for 792 parametric variations of typical construction solutions, covering all primary building components and based on contemporary practice. A full statistical analysis is carried out, which shows a significant statistical correlation between changes in building lifespan and environmental impact for all primary building components, except windows/rooflights. On average, a building lifespan of 80 years reduces environmental impact by 29%, 100 years by 38%, and 120 years by 44%, all in relation to a lifespan of 50 years. The results show that if construction professionals and policy-makers use short building lifespans, then resource allocation to reduce environmental impact during procurement may become disproportionately focused on the construction contra operational phases of the lifecycle. Construction professionals must now integrate environmental concerns with life cycle assessment (LCA) early in the procurement process. Building lifespan is important to LCA, since results must be normalized on an annualized basis for comparison. However, the scientific literature shows that issues of building lifespan are inadequately addressed. The aim of this research is therefore to explore how environmental impact from building components is affected by building lifespans of 50, 80, 100 and 120 years in a Danish context. LCAs are undertaken for 792 parametric variations of typical construction solutions, covering all primary building components and based on contemporary practice. A full statistical analysis is carried out, which shows a significant statistical correlation between changes in building lifespan and environmental impact for all primary building components, except windows/rooflights. On average, a building lifespan of 80 years reduces environmental impact by 29%, 100 years by 38%, and 120 years by 44%, all in relation to a lifespan of 50 years. The results show that if construction professionals and policy-makers use short building lifespans, then resource allocation to reduce environmental impact during procurement may become disproportionately focused on the construction contra operational phases of the lifecycle.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | environmental impact; building lifespan; statistical analysis; primary building components; life cycle assessment; construction; life cycles |
| Index terms: | life cycle, primary building component, lifecycle, variation, building component, building lifespan, window, construction professional, environmental concern, resource allocation, procurement process, environmental impact, statistical analysis, life cycle assessment, lifespan |
| Subjects: | material degradation and durability, project delivery, environmental issues, professional development, contractual arrangements, asset management, architectural elements, resource management, environmental impact, data science, value management, contractual condition |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Construction Materials, Research Practice, Information Management, Sustainability, Project Management, Business Strategy, Site Management, Contract Administration, Procurement |
| 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