4.7 Article

Variability of building environmental assessment tools on evaluating carbon emissions

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW
Volume 38, Issue -, Pages 131-141

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.07.003

Keywords

Carbon emission; Energy efficiency; Building environmental assessment; Greenhouse gases

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With an increasing importance of sustainability in construction, more and more clients and designers employ building environmental assessment (BEA) tools to evaluate the environmental friendliness of their building facilities, and one important aspect of evaluation in the BEA models is the assessment of carbon emissions. However, in the absence of any agreed framework for carbon auditing and benchmarking. the results generated by the BEA tools might vary significantly which could lead to confusion or misinterpretation on the carbon performance of a building. This study thus aims to unveil the properties of and the standard imposed by the current BEA models on evaluating the life cycle carbon emissions. The analyses cover the (i) weighting of energy efficiency and emission levels among various environmental performance indicators; (ii) building life cycle stages in which carbon is taken into consideration; (iii) objectiveness of assessment; (iv) baseline set for carbon assessment; (v) mechanism for benchmarking the emission level; and (v) limitations of the carbon assessment approaches. Results indicate that the current BEA schemes focus primarily on operational carbon instead of the emissions generated throughout the entire building life cycle. Besides, the baseline and benchmark for carbon evaluation vary significantly among the BEA tools based on the analytical results of a hypothetical building. The findings point to the needs for a more transparent framework for carbon auditing and benchmarking in BEA modeling. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available