Life cycle carbon emissions and comparative evaluation of selected open source UK embodied carbon counting tools

IF 1.8 Q3 MANAGEMENT Construction Economics and Building Pub Date : 2019-11-21 DOI:10.5130/AJCEB.V19I2.6692
Damilola Ekundayo, S. Babatunde, A. Ekundayo, S. Perera, Chika Udeaja
{"title":"Life cycle carbon emissions and comparative evaluation of selected open source UK embodied carbon counting tools","authors":"Damilola Ekundayo, S. Babatunde, A. Ekundayo, S. Perera, Chika Udeaja","doi":"10.5130/AJCEB.V19I2.6692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Life cycle carbon emissions (LCO2), made up of operational and embodied carbon, have become a major metric of building environmental performance and energy efficiency. Whilst there are now standard methods for operational carbon assessment due to its significance in LCO2, there is still less emphasis on embodied carbon counting. However, the relative contribution of embodied carbon is on the rise as buildings become increasingly energy efficient. Following the rule that only something which is measurable is manageable, it is essential that we are able to accurately count embodied carbon. This study therefore reviews the concept of LCO2 in buildings and further investigates the open source UK tools for embodied carbon counting. A comparative evaluation case study, which validates an earlier review, showed that there is no logic and consistency in the carbon figures produced by embodied carbon counting tools. This is mainly due to different system boundaries, varying underlying assumptions and methodological differences in calculation. The findings suggest that an industry-agreed data structure and common methodology is needed for embodied carbon counting. Generally, the study provides insights into the use and capabilities of the identified open source UK embodied carbon counting tools, and is relevant to the on-going debate about carbon regulation.","PeriodicalId":51729,"journal":{"name":"Construction Economics and Building","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5130/AJCEB.V19I2.6692","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Construction Economics and Building","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.V19I2.6692","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

Life cycle carbon emissions (LCO2), made up of operational and embodied carbon, have become a major metric of building environmental performance and energy efficiency. Whilst there are now standard methods for operational carbon assessment due to its significance in LCO2, there is still less emphasis on embodied carbon counting. However, the relative contribution of embodied carbon is on the rise as buildings become increasingly energy efficient. Following the rule that only something which is measurable is manageable, it is essential that we are able to accurately count embodied carbon. This study therefore reviews the concept of LCO2 in buildings and further investigates the open source UK tools for embodied carbon counting. A comparative evaluation case study, which validates an earlier review, showed that there is no logic and consistency in the carbon figures produced by embodied carbon counting tools. This is mainly due to different system boundaries, varying underlying assumptions and methodological differences in calculation. The findings suggest that an industry-agreed data structure and common methodology is needed for embodied carbon counting. Generally, the study provides insights into the use and capabilities of the identified open source UK embodied carbon counting tools, and is relevant to the on-going debate about carbon regulation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生命周期碳排放量和选定的英国开源碳计数工具的比较评估
生命周期碳排放(LCO2)由操作碳和隐含碳组成,已成为衡量建筑环境绩效和能源效率的主要指标。虽然由于其在LCO2中的重要性,现在有了操作性碳评估的标准方法,但对隐含碳计数的重视程度仍然较低。然而,随着建筑能源效率的提高,隐含碳的相对贡献正在上升。按照“只有可测量的东西才是可管理的”这一原则,我们必须能够准确地计算隐含碳。因此,本研究回顾了建筑中LCO2的概念,并进一步调查了英国隐含碳计数的开源工具。一项比较评估案例研究验证了先前的评论,表明隐含碳计数工具产生的碳数字没有逻辑和一致性。这主要是由于不同的系统边界,不同的基本假设和计算方法的差异。研究结果表明,需要一个行业认可的数据结构和通用的方法来计算隐含碳。总的来说,该研究提供了对已确定的开源英国隐含碳计算工具的使用和功能的见解,并且与正在进行的关于碳监管的辩论相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
6.20%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Construction Economics and Building (formerly known as the Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building [AJCEB]) is a peer reviewed, open access publication for original research into all aspects of the economics and management of building and construction, quantity surveying and property management as well as construction and property education. It is free for authors, readers and libraries.
期刊最新文献
Roofing Distributor Employee Perception: Workforce Attraction/Retention and Need Adopting qualitative data in conceptual system dynamic modelling Editorial: Quality in Challenging Times Analyzing the Influence of Organizational Culture in Projects using Last Planner System Effect of anti-corruption systems’ logic on corruption manifestations in project planning and execution in Nigeria
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1