A Life-Cycle Approach to Investigate the Potential of Novel Biobased Construction Materials toward a Circular Built Environment

Abstract

Conventional construction materials which rely on a fossil-based, nonrenewable extractive economy are typically associated with an entrenched linear economic approach to production. Current research indicates the clear interrelationships between the production and use of construction materials and anthropogenic climate change. This paper investigates the potential for emerging high-performance biobased construction materials, produced sustainably and/or using waste byproducts, to enable a more environmentally sustainable approach to the built environment. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is employed to compare three wall assemblies using local biobased materials in Montreal (Canada), Nairobi (Kenya), and Accra (Ghana) vs. a traditional construction using gypsum boards and rockwool insulation. Global warming potential, nonrenewable cumulative energy demand, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, and freshwater consumption (FWC) are considered. Scenarios include options for design for disassembly (DfD), as well as potential future alternatives for electricity supply in Kenya and Ghana. Results indicate that all biobased alternatives have lower (often significantly so) life-cycle impacts per functional unit, compared to the traditional construction. DfD strategies are also shown to result in −10% to −50% impact reductions. The results for both African countries exhibit a large dependence on the electricity source used for manufacturing, with significant potential for future decarbonization, but also some associated tradeoffs in terms of acidification and eutrophication.

Towards Sustainable Construction: A Systematic Review of Circular Economy Strategies and Ecodesign in the Built Environment

“…It is important to highlight that a majority of the articles did not conduct a complete LCA. Some studies consider only the cradle-to-gate system [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46], while others address the cradle-to-grave approach [28,[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]. In contrast, few studies have assessed more than one life cycle [56][57][58][59], existing urban stocks renewals [60], reuse scenarios [61][62][63], and credits for potential reuse, energy recovery, or recycling of materials in subsequent product systems [64].…”

“…Also, investigate the hotspots of a process and develop solutions to reduce environmental impacts. [28,34,[38][39][40][41][42]45,48,51,58,70,71,76,79,85,87,88,91,93,[96][97][98][99] Use of renewable energy and decarbonization of supply chain Design to use renewable energy, sources are regenerated or naturally replenished (biomass, geothermal, solar, hydro, wind, and biofuels), to generate electric power, heating, cooking, water heating, and as fuel for transport. [28,52,68,73,74,91,93] Analyzing the relationship between the year and the strategy, as shown in Figure 7, the most cited strategies between 2020 and 2022 are "Reuse of buildings and materials", "Studying alternatives", "Design for disassembly", "Design for flexibility and adaptability", "Design for life extension", "Design for reuse", and "Recycling".…”

A Review of Natural Bio-Based Insulation Materials

“…Fast-growing bio-based materials can help to compensate for carbon emissions, as it is nearly impossible to have zero embodied GHG emissions, especially due to highly processed materials still being needed in some foundations and as a stabilizer for some materials [77]. Keena et al [78] highlighted that bio-based solutions for built environments have lower environmental impacts, in a life cycle approach, per functional unit than other conventional solutions.…”