Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the built environment – What does the evidence say?

Abstract

Of all industrial sectors, the built environment puts the most pressure on the natural environment, and in spite of significant efforts the International Energy Agency suggests that buildings-related emissions are on track to double by 2050. Whilst operational energy efficiency continues to receive significant attention by researchers, a less well-researched area is the assessment of embodied carbon in the built environment in order to understand where the greatest opportunities for its mitigation and reduction lie. This article approaches the body of academic knowledge on strategies to tackle embodied carbon (EC) and uses a systematic review of the available evidence to answer the following research question: how should we mitigate and reduce EC in the built environment? 102 journal articles have been reviewed systematically in the fields of embodied carbon mitigation and reduction, and life cycle assessment. In total, 17 mitigation strategies have been identified from within the existing literature which have been discussed through a meta-analysis on available data. Results reveal that no single mitigation strategy alone seems able to tackle the problem; rather, a pluralistic approach is necessary. The use of materials with lower EC, better design, an increased reuse of ECintensive materials, and stronger policy drivers all emerged as key elements for a quicker transition to a low carbon built environment. The meta-analysis on 77 LCAs also shows an extremely incomplete and short-sighted approach to life cycle studies. Most studies only assess the manufacturing stages, often completely overlooking impacts occurring during the occupancy stage and at the end of life of the building. The LCA research community have the responsibility to address such shortcomings and work towards more complete and meaningful assessments.

A review of environmental impact indicators of cultural heritage buildings: a circular economy perspective

“…In their study, Pomponi and Moncaster (2016) use the systematic literature review method to analyze 102 journal articles on how to mitigate and reduce embodied carbon in the built environment, identifying 17 mitigation strategies within the existing literature and conducting a meta-analysis of 77 LCA studies. The systematic review method, including a meta-study, allows the authors to make critical comments and suggestions about the way LCA studies are conducted.…”

“…Several existing works establish the many links between buildings and CE (Pomponi and Moncaster 2016, Adams et al 2017, Leising et al 2017, Pomponi and Moncaster 2017, Fusco Girard and Gravagnuolo 2018, Mahpour 2018, Foster 2020. The goal of adopting a circular approach to buildings is mainly to reduce waste production and reduce resource consumption (Williams 2016).…”

“…(Gough et al 2017), including organizational research and management(Tranfield et al 2003, Denyer andTranfield 2009) as well as the built environmentMoncaster 2016, Pomponi et al 2016).…”

Briefing: Embodied carbon dioxide assessment in buildings: guidance and gaps

“…Despite recent growth in the publication of EPDs (Anderson, 2017), it continues to be difficult to source appropriate product data (Gavotsis and Moncaster, 2015;Giesekam et al, 2016c) and the use of outdated or geographically inappropriate data remains commonplace (De Wolf et al, 2017;Pomponi and Moncaster, 2016). The shortcomings of some of the most commonly used databases are also well documented (e.g.…”

“…Embodied greenhouse gas emissions ('embodied carbon') emissions already make up as much as 90% of whole-life GHG emissions on some projects (Sturgis and Roberts, 2010), constitute a growing share across all project types (Ibn-Mohammed et al, 2013) and are responsible for almost a quarter of annual built environment emissions (see Figure 1). These embodied carbon emissions can be addressed through a wide range of mitigation strategies (Lupíšek et al 2016;Pomponi and Moncaster, 2016), such as improvement in the efficiency of structural designs (Cullen et al, 2011;Moynihan and Allwood, 2014), the use of alternative building materials (Cabeza et al, 2013;Giesekam et al, 2014;Giesekam et al, 2016c) or the adoption of circular economy approaches that encourage increased reuse and recycling of materials, components and structures (Densley Tingley and Davison, 2011;.…”