No abstract

The increasing pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings has motivated specialists to develop low-carbon products incorporating bio-based materials. The impact of these materials is often evaluated through life-cycle assessment (LCA), but there is no clear consensus on how to model the biogenic carbon released or absorbed during their life-cycle. This study investigates and compares existing methods used for biogenic carbon assessment. The most common approaches were identified through an extensive literature review. The possible discrepancies between the results obtained when adopting different methods are made evident through an LCA study of a timber building. Results identified that land-use and land-use-change (LULUC) impacts and carbon-storage credits are not included in most existing methods. In addition, when limiting the system boundary to certain life-cycle stages, methods using the-1/+1 criterion can lead to net negative results for the global warming (GW) score, failing to provide accurate data to inform decision-making. Deviation between the results obtained from different methods was 16% at the building scale and between 35% and 200% at the component scale. Of all the methods studied, the dynamic approach of evaluating biogenic carbon uptake is the most robust and transparent. Practice relevance This critical review identified key methodological differences between the most commonly used methods and recommended standards for biogenic carbon accounting in buildings. This indicates a lack of consensus and guidance for conducting LCAs of bio-based construction products and buildings using bio-based materials. A case study applying four different LCA approaches on a timber building identified the inability to compare results and create proper benchmarks. Moreover, different methods lead designers to pursue different strategies to reduce a building's carbon footprint. Regulators, the construction industry and the construction products industry are directly affected by this lack of comparability. This research highlights the flaws and benefits of commonly used methods. A clear and grounded recommendation is for practitioners to adopt dynamic biogenic carbon accounting for future assessments of bio-based materials and buildings.

No abstract

Target values for creating carbon budgets for buildings are important for developing climateneutral 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.

No abstract