3.8 Proceedings Paper

Carbon Footprint and Carbon Emission Reduction of Urban Buildings: A Case in Xiamen City, China

Journal

URBAN TRANSITIONS CONFERENCE
Volume 198, Issue -, Pages 1007-1017

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.146

Keywords

carbon footprint; life cycle analysis; urban building; Xiamen city

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2011DFB97710]
  2. Public Welfare Project on Environmental Protection [201009055]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71003090]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The building sector is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emission in urban areas. Quantitative assessment of the carbon footprint of urban buildings is needed to advance research and policy debates on building carbon emission reduction and sustainable architectural planning. This study develops a calculation methodology for carbon footprint accounting of urban buildings by taking Xiamen as a case study. Also, a scenario analysis is performed for examining emission reduction potential. It is shown that the carbon footprint of urban buildings increased from 8.95 million tons in 2005 to 13.57 million tons in 2009 in Xiamen, with an average annual growth rate of 12.87%. The carbon emissions from building material production and building energy use contributed 45% and 40% of building carbon footprint respectively. With the implementation of low-carbon strategies in building sector, such as increased energy efficiency design for new buildings and energy-saving retrofit for existing buildings, there would be a significant influence on carbon emission reduction. The growth rate of energy consumption from urban buildings would decrease 2.98% by 2020, with an energy saving of 1.66 million tce and a carbon emission reduction of 3.15 million tCO(2)e, in a low-carbon development scenario. (c) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available