2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105696
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lifespan prediction of existing building typologies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
2

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In real life, these parameters fluctuate for various underlying reasons, and using constants instead in modeling introduces a level of inaccuracy in predictions of future building stock dynamics. Another source of inaccuracy is the model's long timeframe, which was selected to obtain a realistic duration when introducing DfA and DfD and because of the long and varied lifespan of buildings, which ranges from 20 to 300 years (most commonly between 50 and 150 years) (Andersen & Negendahl, 2023; Ianchenko et al., 2020; O'Connor, 2004). Although the prediction of building stock dynamics lacks accuracy, the model still offers the possibility of identifying the environmental impacts of applying eco‐design strategies from a dynamic and macroscale perspective and across multiple building types and environmental impact categories.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In real life, these parameters fluctuate for various underlying reasons, and using constants instead in modeling introduces a level of inaccuracy in predictions of future building stock dynamics. Another source of inaccuracy is the model's long timeframe, which was selected to obtain a realistic duration when introducing DfA and DfD and because of the long and varied lifespan of buildings, which ranges from 20 to 300 years (most commonly between 50 and 150 years) (Andersen & Negendahl, 2023; Ianchenko et al., 2020; O'Connor, 2004). Although the prediction of building stock dynamics lacks accuracy, the model still offers the possibility of identifying the environmental impacts of applying eco‐design strategies from a dynamic and macroscale perspective and across multiple building types and environmental impact categories.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An important reason we must grow buildings, is their lifespans are rapidly decreasing due to early demolition, which often contributes to unsustainable landfilling. Trends of shortened building lifespans have been documented through numerous studies tabulated by Anderson and Negendahl (2023). The lifespan of a house is around 60 years in the United States (Aktas and Bilec 2012), 65 years in Southeastern Europe (Novikova et al 2018) and 25 years in Japan (Wuyts et al 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The lifespan of a house is around 60 years in the United States (Aktas and Bilec 2012), 65 years in Southeastern Europe (Novikova et al 2018) and 25 years in Japan (Wuyts et al 2019). Anderson and Negendahl (2023) studied buildings in Denmark and found that new buildings will have a projected lifespan 45% shorter than the average for that same building type. For example, new office buildings in Denmark have a projected lifespan of just 40 years, in contrast to office buildings built before 1960 that could have 80þ years remaining.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%