Assessment of absolute environmental sustainability in the built environment

Andersen, Camilla Marlene Ernst; Ohms, Pernille Krogh; Rasmussen, Freja Nygaard; Birgisdóttir, Harpa; Birkved, Morten; Hauschild, Michael Zwicky; Ryberg, Morten

doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106633

Cited by 42 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Planetary boundaries is a more precautionary approach and sets a lower environmental boundary than the carrying capacity. As sharing principles is a matter of who has the right to impact how much, six different sharing principles were applied to allocate the carrying capacity and planetary boundaries to a single-family dwelling (Andersen et al 2020). The sharing principles include approaches such as equal per capita, final consumption expenditure, energy consumption and CO 2 e emissions.…”

Section: Example Illustrating Different Sharing Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Derived from results of a household living in a dwelling of 150 m 2(Andersen et al 2020). Sharing principle 1 (egalitarian + time shared + final consumption expenditure); Sharing principle 2 (egalitarian + final consumption expenditure); Sharing principle 3 (egalitarian + grandfathering); Sharing principle 4 (grandfathering + energy); Sharing principle 5 (grandfathering + final consumption expenditure); and Sharing principle 6 (final consumption expenditure).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Carbon budgets for buildings: harmonising temporal, spatial and sectoral dimensions

Habert¹,

Röck²,

Steininger³

et al. 2020

Buildings and Cities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Example Illustrating Different Sharing Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon budgets for buildings: harmonising temporal, spatial and sectoral dimensions

Habert¹,

Röck²,

Steininger³

et al. 2020

Buildings and Cities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2014, the built-up area per capita in Denmark was 408 m 2 /capita compared to a global built-up area of 107 m 2 /capita and an average in the EU of 264 m 2 /capita. Studies comparing the environmental impact of case studies of one family house show that an effective way to reduce environmental impacts is to reduce the size of the house, as this reduces both material consumption and operational energy [29,55]. Another initiative that could even avoid the need for new buildings, is to use the existing building stock more efficiently.…”

Section: Mitigation Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining dynamic science-based climate change budgets for countries and absolute sustainable building targets

Horup

Birgisdóttir

Ryberg

2023

Building and Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Settlements development is related to the land's carrying capacity, which contains two main components: the availability of natural resource potential and environmental bearing capacity. It is essential because humans must be placed in safe residential spaces (Andersen et al 2020). Other research proved that unlimited population and settlement growth would cause environmental damage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Settlement Development Based On Environmental Carrying Capacity In Batu City, Indonesia

Witjaksono¹,

Gai²,

Maulida³

2023

GES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increase in population and demand for settlement facilities and infrastructure affects the attractiveness of Batu city (Indonesia) and has a significant impact on the environmentWe perform spatial mapping of the environmental carrying capacity in developing settlements using the overlay-geoprocessing method. This method is based on unit indicators such as slope, morthology, soil type, elevation, and potential for disasters for obtaining the data on land capability, land suitability, and settlement development plans. Land capability analysis shows that slope, morthology and altitude are the main factors for attributing moderate, low, and poor development capability. The land capability unit shows the areas with slope steepness and land morthology that are not appropriate for intensively developing areas. Batu City areas of moderate, low, and poor development capacity cover 13,365.14 ha, 3193.04 ha, and 2858.07 ha. We also demonstrate that there is about 2,363 ha of unsuitable land use with poor land capability and 3,784.28 ha of land can be developed for settlement. Using this approach we determine saturation point in the residential area plan, because the environmental impact will increase if no threshold is given for residential development.

show abstract

Assessment of absolute environmental sustainability in the built environment

Cited by 42 publications

References 27 publications

Carbon budgets for buildings: harmonising temporal, spatial and sectoral dimensions

Carbon budgets for buildings: harmonising temporal, spatial and sectoral dimensions

Defining dynamic science-based climate change budgets for countries and absolute sustainable building targets

Settlement Development Based On Environmental Carrying Capacity In Batu City, Indonesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About