4.6 Article

Life-Cycle Assessment in the LEED-CI v4 Categories of Location and Transportation (LT) and Energy and Atmosphere (EA) in California: A Case Study of Two Strategies for LEED Projects

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 14, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su141710893

关键词

California; LEED certification; LCA; location and transportation credits; energy and atmosphere credits; ReCiPe2016 method

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identified different certification strategies for LEED-CI v4 gold-certified office projects in California's cities and explored these strategies using life-cycle assessments. The results showed that some strategies were more environmentally beneficial in different time frames, suggesting that analyzing LCA of LEED certification strategies can help refine the best sustainable approach.
This study aimed to identify different certification strategies for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Commercial Interior version 4 (LEED-CI v4) gold-certified office projects in California's cities and to explore these certification strategies using life-cycle assessments (LCAs). The LEED-CI v4 data were divided into two groups: high- and low-achievement groups in the Location and Transportation (LT) category. The author identified two strategies for achieving the same level of certification across LEED-CI v4 projects: (1) high achievements in LT (LTHigh) and low achievements in the Energy and Atmosphere (EA) category (EA(Low)), and (2) low achievements in the LT category (LTLow) and high achievements in EA (EA(High)). The author adopted LTHigh-EA(Low) and LTLow-EA(High) achievements as functional units for LCA. Three alternatives were LTHigh: typical bus, EA(Low): gas; LTLow: typical car, EA(High): gas; and LTLow: eco-friendly car, EA(High): gas, where a typical bus used diesel, a typical car used natural gas, an eco-friendly car used EURO5diesel, and natural gas was used as a building's operational energy. The ReCiPe2016 results showed that the LTHigh: typical bus, EA(Low): gas strategy was preferable from a short-term perspective, and the LTLow: eco-friendly car, EA(High): gas strategy was preferable in a long-term and an infinite time perspective, while the LTLow: typical car, EA(High): gas strategy continued to be the most environmentally damaging certification strategy for all the time horizons of the existing pollutants. Thus, it can be concluded that if there are alternative strategies for LEED certification, an analysis of their LCAs can be useful to refine the best sustainable strategy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据