揭示建筑部门去碳化的潜力:技术和非技术低碳战略比较研究

IF 10.9 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Sustainable Production and Consumption Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1016/j.spc.2024.11.001
Sogand Shahmohammadi, Marianne Pedinotti-Castelle, Ben Amor
{"title":"揭示建筑部门去碳化的潜力:技术和非技术低碳战略比较研究","authors":"Sogand Shahmohammadi,&nbsp;Marianne Pedinotti-Castelle,&nbsp;Ben Amor","doi":"10.1016/j.spc.2024.11.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>There is an urgent need to mitigate carbon emissions in the building sector, particularly from existing buildings. The existing literature focuses predominantly on technological strategies such as low-carbon materials. This prompts the question: Can technological strategies alone drive the decarbonization of buildings, or are non-technological strategies also essential? Although recent research considers the benefits of the latter, studies assessing the potential of non-technological strategies for decarbonization of buildings are lacking because of the challenges involved in evaluating the indirect impacts and potential trade-offs associated with these strategies such as their ripple effects on mobility. This study pioneers a comparative assessment to evaluate the environmental mitigation potential of non-technological strategies (adaptation, a subset of the sharing economy, and behavioral changes) against technological strategies (low-carbon materials, retrofitting, and recycled materials) to ascertain the effectiveness of non-technological approaches. Through life cycle assessment, this study extends beyond solely evaluating the GHG reduction potential to assess the overall environmental mitigation capacity. A single-family house in Montreal was used as a reference scenario. With significant mitigation potential observed from a non-technological perspective, the results robustly reveal that the adaptation scenario surpasses all scenarios, including retrofitting, which is the primary mitigation strategy for existing buildings, by up to 50 % and 41 % at the midpoint and damage levels, respectively. Furthermore, the adaptation scenario potentially provides sufficiency by saving considerable amounts of material and energy, thereby alleviating the environmental impact of the production and use stages by up to 27 % and 15 %, respectively. This study also evaluates the combined effects of adaptation and retrofitting for existing buildings, revealing by up to 8 % greater environmental benefits at the midpoint and damage levels than in the adaptation scenario individually. These results highlight the potential of non-technological strategies that are currently overlooked in the building sector. However, their implementation requires fewer resources and less energy than technological changes. Therefore, further investigation is warranted to explore how adopting these strategies, along with technological ones, is advantageous.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48619,"journal":{"name":"Sustainable Production and Consumption","volume":"52 ","pages":"Pages 268-282"},"PeriodicalIF":10.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unveiling the potential for decarbonization of the building sector: A comparative study of technological and non-technological low-carbon strategies\",\"authors\":\"Sogand Shahmohammadi,&nbsp;Marianne Pedinotti-Castelle,&nbsp;Ben Amor\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.spc.2024.11.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>There is an urgent need to mitigate carbon emissions in the building sector, particularly from existing buildings. The existing literature focuses predominantly on technological strategies such as low-carbon materials. This prompts the question: Can technological strategies alone drive the decarbonization of buildings, or are non-technological strategies also essential? Although recent research considers the benefits of the latter, studies assessing the potential of non-technological strategies for decarbonization of buildings are lacking because of the challenges involved in evaluating the indirect impacts and potential trade-offs associated with these strategies such as their ripple effects on mobility. This study pioneers a comparative assessment to evaluate the environmental mitigation potential of non-technological strategies (adaptation, a subset of the sharing economy, and behavioral changes) against technological strategies (low-carbon materials, retrofitting, and recycled materials) to ascertain the effectiveness of non-technological approaches. Through life cycle assessment, this study extends beyond solely evaluating the GHG reduction potential to assess the overall environmental mitigation capacity. A single-family house in Montreal was used as a reference scenario. With significant mitigation potential observed from a non-technological perspective, the results robustly reveal that the adaptation scenario surpasses all scenarios, including retrofitting, which is the primary mitigation strategy for existing buildings, by up to 50 % and 41 % at the midpoint and damage levels, respectively. Furthermore, the adaptation scenario potentially provides sufficiency by saving considerable amounts of material and energy, thereby alleviating the environmental impact of the production and use stages by up to 27 % and 15 %, respectively. This study also evaluates the combined effects of adaptation and retrofitting for existing buildings, revealing by up to 8 % greater environmental benefits at the midpoint and damage levels than in the adaptation scenario individually. These results highlight the potential of non-technological strategies that are currently overlooked in the building sector. However, their implementation requires fewer resources and less energy than technological changes. Therefore, further investigation is warranted to explore how adopting these strategies, along with technological ones, is advantageous.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48619,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sustainable Production and Consumption\",\"volume\":\"52 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 268-282\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sustainable Production and Consumption\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550924003130\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainable Production and Consumption","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550924003130","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前迫切需要减少建筑领域的碳排放,尤其是现有建筑的碳排放。现有文献主要关注低碳材料等技术战略。这就提出了一个问题:是技术战略本身就能推动建筑的去碳化,还是非技术战略也必不可少?尽管最近的研究考虑了后者的益处,但缺乏对非技术策略在建筑脱碳方面的潜力进行评估的研究,因为评估这些策略的间接影响和潜在权衡(如对流动性的连锁反应)是一项挑战。本研究开创了一种比较评估方法,将非技术策略(适应、共享经济子集和行为改变)与技术策略(低碳材料、改造和再生材料)进行比较,以确定非技术方法的有效性。通过生命周期评估,本研究不仅评估了温室气体减排潜力,还评估了整体环境缓解能力。蒙特利尔的一栋单户住宅被用作参考方案。从非技术角度观察到了巨大的减排潜力,研究结果有力地揭示了适应方案超越了所有方案,包括改造方案,而改造方案是现有建筑的主要减排策略,在中点和损害水平上分别高达 50% 和 41%。此外,适应方案通过节省大量材料和能源,有可能提供充足的能源,从而将生产和使用阶段对环境的影响分别减轻 27% 和 15%。本研究还评估了现有建筑适应性改造和翻新改造的综合效果,结果显示,在中点和损害水平上,环境效益比单独适应性改造方案高出多达 8%。这些结果凸显了目前在建筑领域被忽视的非技术战略的潜力。然而,与技术变革相比,实施这些战略所需的资源和能源更少。因此,有必要进行进一步调查,以探索在采用技术策略的同时采用这些策略的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Unveiling the potential for decarbonization of the building sector: A comparative study of technological and non-technological low-carbon strategies
There is an urgent need to mitigate carbon emissions in the building sector, particularly from existing buildings. The existing literature focuses predominantly on technological strategies such as low-carbon materials. This prompts the question: Can technological strategies alone drive the decarbonization of buildings, or are non-technological strategies also essential? Although recent research considers the benefits of the latter, studies assessing the potential of non-technological strategies for decarbonization of buildings are lacking because of the challenges involved in evaluating the indirect impacts and potential trade-offs associated with these strategies such as their ripple effects on mobility. This study pioneers a comparative assessment to evaluate the environmental mitigation potential of non-technological strategies (adaptation, a subset of the sharing economy, and behavioral changes) against technological strategies (low-carbon materials, retrofitting, and recycled materials) to ascertain the effectiveness of non-technological approaches. Through life cycle assessment, this study extends beyond solely evaluating the GHG reduction potential to assess the overall environmental mitigation capacity. A single-family house in Montreal was used as a reference scenario. With significant mitigation potential observed from a non-technological perspective, the results robustly reveal that the adaptation scenario surpasses all scenarios, including retrofitting, which is the primary mitigation strategy for existing buildings, by up to 50 % and 41 % at the midpoint and damage levels, respectively. Furthermore, the adaptation scenario potentially provides sufficiency by saving considerable amounts of material and energy, thereby alleviating the environmental impact of the production and use stages by up to 27 % and 15 %, respectively. This study also evaluates the combined effects of adaptation and retrofitting for existing buildings, revealing by up to 8 % greater environmental benefits at the midpoint and damage levels than in the adaptation scenario individually. These results highlight the potential of non-technological strategies that are currently overlooked in the building sector. However, their implementation requires fewer resources and less energy than technological changes. Therefore, further investigation is warranted to explore how adopting these strategies, along with technological ones, is advantageous.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sustainable Production and Consumption
Sustainable Production and Consumption Environmental Science-Environmental Engineering
CiteScore
17.40
自引率
7.40%
发文量
389
审稿时长
13 days
期刊介绍: Sustainable production and consumption refers to the production and utilization of goods and services in a way that benefits society, is economically viable, and has minimal environmental impact throughout its entire lifespan. Our journal is dedicated to publishing top-notch interdisciplinary research and practical studies in this emerging field. We take a distinctive approach by examining the interplay between technology, consumption patterns, and policy to identify sustainable solutions for both production and consumption systems.
期刊最新文献
A value-sensitive approach for integrated seawater desalination and brine treatment Conceptualizing circular economy policy instruments: The case of recycled content standards A review of life cycle impacts and costs of precision agriculture for cultivation of field crops An interlinked dynamic model of timber and carbon stocks in Japan's wooden houses and plantation forests Lithium from clay: Assessing the environmental impacts of extraction
×
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