Multidisciplinary life cycle metrics and tools for green buildings

Abstract

Building sector stakeholders need compelling metrics, tools, data, and case studies to support major investments in sustainable technologies. Proponents of green building widely claim that buildings integrating sustainable technologies are cost effective, but often these claims are based on incomplete, anecdotal evidence that is difficult to reproduce and defend. The claims suffer from 2 main weaknesses: 1) buildings on which claims are based are not necessarily "green" in a science-based, life cycle assessment (LCA) sense and 2) measures of cost effectiveness often are not based on standard methods for measuring economic worth. Yet, the building industry demands compelling metrics to justify sustainable building designs. The problem is hard to solve because, until now, neither methods nor robust data supporting defensible business cases were available. The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Building and Fire Research Laboratory is beginning to address these needs by developing metrics and tools for assessing the life cycle economic and environmental performance of buildings. Economic performance is measured with the use of standard life cycle costing methods. Environmental performance is measured by LCA methods that assess the "carbon footprint" of buildings, as well as 11 other sustainability metrics, including fossil fuel depletion, smog formation, water use, habitat alteration, indoor air quality, and effects on human health. Carbon efficiency ratios and other eco-efficiency metrics are established to yield science-based measures of the relative worth, or "business cases," for green buildings. Here, the approach is illustrated through a realistic building case study focused on different heating, ventilation, air conditioning technology energy efficiency. Additionally, the evolution of the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability multidisciplinary team and future plans in this area are described.

Land use impact assessment in the construction sector: an analysis of LCIA models and case study application

“…Additionally, although LCA is a widely used methodology to assess the environmental impact of buildings (Allacker et al 2011;Asif et al 2007;Feist et al 2001), the main focus of LCA studies of buildings has been on energy-related impacts (Passivhaus Institut 2006;Helgeson and Lippiatt 2009;Nemry et al 2010;Valderrama et al 2012;Zabalza Bribián et al 2009). Even in more comprehensive LCA-based evaluations, land use is not included.…”

Untitled

“…On the other hand, natural ventilation for the buildings is viable in the mid-seasons. The hybrid ventilation system is a feasible, low energy approach for building design, even in sub-tropical climates [30]. Khaleghi et al [31] concluded that, in general, mechanical ventilation can provide better indoor airquality, but the noise is an issue if the system is not properly designed.…”

Improving the economic viability of investment in building sustainability through the valuation of resilience-based co-benefits

“…Almost a decade ago, the Applied Economics Office (AEO) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) first proposed an approach to systematically assess the "returns" on sustainable building design that considers simultaneously: 1. environmental performance through life-cycle assessment (LCA) and 2. economic performance through life cycle costing (LCC) (Helgeson and Lippiatt 2009). Since this time, NIST has built a Net-Zero Energy Residential Test Facility (NZERTF) and systematically modeled LCC and LCA valuation verified through measured experimental data from the NZERTF (Healy, Kneifel, andWebb 2016…”