Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Published in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8/2014

01-08-2014 | LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

Integrating triple bottom line input–output analysis into life cycle sustainability assessment framework: the case for US buildings

Authors: Nuri Cihat Onat, Murat Kucukvar, Omer Tatari

Published in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | Issue 8/2014

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Purpose

With the increasing concerns related to integration of social and economic dimensions of the sustainability into life cycle assessment (LCA), traditional LCA approach has been transformed into a new concept, which is called as life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). This study aims to contribute the existing LCSA framework by integrating several social and economic indicators to demonstrate the usefulness of input–output modeling on quantifying sustainability impacts. Additionally, inclusion of all indirect supply chain-related impacts provides an economy-wide analysis and a macro-level LCSA. Current research also aims to identify and outline economic, social, and environmental impacts, termed as triple bottom line (TBL), of the US residential and commercial buildings encompassing building construction, operation, and disposal phases.

Methods

To achieve this goal, TBL economic input–output based hybrid LCA model is utilized for assessing building sustainability of the US residential and commercial buildings. Residential buildings include single and multi-family structures, while medical buildings, hospitals, special care buildings, office buildings, including financial buildings, multi-merchandise shopping, beverage and food establishments, warehouses, and other commercial structures are classified as commercial buildings according to the US Department of Commerce. In this analysis, 16 macro-level sustainability assessment indicators were chosen and divided into three main categories, namely environmental, social, and economic indicators.

Results and discussion

Analysis results revealed that construction phase, electricity use, and commuting played a crucial role in much of the sustainability impact categories. The electricity use was the most dominant component of the environmental impacts with more than 50 % of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption through all life cycle stages of the US buildings. In addition, construction phase has the largest share in income category with 60 % of the total income generated through residential building’s life cycle. Residential buildings have higher shares in all of the sustainability impact categories due to their relatively higher economic activity and different supply chain characteristics.

Conclusions

This paper is an important attempt toward integrating the TBL perspective into LCSA framework. Policymakers can benefit from such approach and quantify macro-level environmental, economic, and social impacts of their policy implications simultaneously. Another important outcome of this study is that focusing only environmental impacts may misguide decision-makers and compromise social and economic benefits while trying to reduce environmental impacts. Hence, instead of focusing on environmental impacts only, this study filled the gap about analyzing sustainability impacts of buildings from a holistic perspective.
previous article Comparing apples with oranges: on the functional equivalence of food products for comparative LCAs
next article Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
Ardente F, Beccali M, Cellura M, Mistretta M (2011) Energy and environmental benefits in public buildings as a result of retrofit actions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:460–470CrossRef
Beccali M, Cellura M, Fontana M et al (2013) Energy retrofit of a single-family house: life cycle net energy saving and environmental benefits. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 27:283–293CrossRef
Bilec M, Ries R, Matthews HS, Sharrard AL (2006) Example of a hybrid life-cycle assessment of construction processes. J Infrastruct Syst 12:207–215
Blackhurst BM, Hendrickson C, Vidal JSI (2010) Direct and indirect water withdrawals for U.S. industrial sectors. Environ Sci Technol 44:2126–30
Blanchard S, Reppe P (1998) Life cycle analysis of a residential home in Michigan. University of Michigan, Ann Arbour
BTS (Bureau of Transportation Statistics) (2012) Injured persons by transportation mode. Table 2–2
Cabeza LF, Rincón L, Vilariño V et al (2014) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 29:394–416
Cellura M, Di Gangi A, Longo S, Orioli A (2013a) An Italian input–output model for the assessment of energy and environmental benefits arising from retrofit actions of buildings. Energy Build 62:97–106
Cellura M, Guarino F, Longo S et al (2013b) The role of the building sector for reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gases: an Italian case study. Renew Energy 60:586–597
Cicas G, Hendrickson CT, Horvath A, Matthews HS (2007) A regional version of a US economic input–output life-cycle assessment model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:365–372
Climate Leaders (2008) Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol Core Module Guidance-Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources. 3–30
Cuéllar-Franca RM, Azapagic A (2012) Environmental impacts of the UK residential sector: life cycle assessment of houses. Build Environ 54:86–99
Dietzenbacher E, Lenzen M, Los B et al (2013) Input–output analysis: the next 25 years. Econ Syst Res 25(4):369–389
Egilmez G, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2013) Sustainability assessment of U.S. manufacturing sectors: an economic input output-based frontier approach. J Clean Prod 53:91–102
Egilmez G, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2014) Supply chain sustainability assessment of the U.S. food manufacturing sectors: a life cycle-based frontier approach. Resour Conserv Recycl 82:8–20
EIA (2012a) Annual Energy Review. 219–252
EPA (2003) Estimating Building-Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts. 22
Eurostat (2008) Eurostat manual of supply, use and input–output tables. Luxembourg
Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T et al (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 91:1–21
Fisher DC, Whitehead CD, Melody M (2008) National and Regional Water and Wastewater Rates For Use in Cost-Benefit Models and Evaluations of Water Efficiency Programs. 1–19
Foran B, Lenzen M, Dey C (2005a) Balancing Act a triple bottom line analysis of the Australian economy volume 1. Act. CSIRO, Canberra City, p 277
Foran B, Lenzen M, Dey C, Bilek M (2005b) Integrating sustainable chain management with triple bottom line accounting. Ecol Econ 52:143–157
Frontline Risk Solver (2013) Version 12.0. Frontline Systems Inc, Nevada, USA
Graedel T, Allenby B (2009) Industrial ecology and sustainable engineering, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G et al (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96
Heijungs R (2010) Sensitivity coefficients for matrix-based LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:511–520
Heinonen J, Säynäjoki A, Junnila S (2011) A longitudinal study on the carbon emissions of a new residential development. Sustainability 3:1170–1189
Hendrickson C, Horvath A (2000) Resource use and environmental emissions of US construction sectors. J Constr Eng Manag 126:38–44
Hendrickson CT, Lester BL, Matthews HS (2006) Environmental life cycle assessment of goods and services: an input–output approach. Washington DC
Huang YA, Lenzen M, Weber CL et al (2009a) The role of input–output analysis for the screening of corporate carbon footprints. Econ Syst Res 21:217–242
Huang YA, Weber CL, Matthews HS (2009b) Categorization of scope 3 emissions for streamlined enterprise carbon footprinting. Environ Sci Technol 43:8509–8515
Joshi S (1999) Product environmental life-cycle assessment using input–output techniques. J Ind Ecol 3:95–120
Junnila S, Horvath A, Guggemos AA (2006) Life-cycle assessment of office buildings in Europe and the United States. J Infrastruct Syst 12:10–17
Kenny JF, Barber NL, Hutson SS et al. (2009) Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005. Circ 1344 1344:52
Kibert CJ (2012) Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery, 3rd ed., pp 8–9
Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:89–95
Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2011) A comprehensive life cycle analysis of cofiring algae in a coal power plant as a solution for achieving sustainable energy. Energy 36:6352–6357
Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2013) Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of the U.S. construction industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:958–972
Lenzen M (2000) Errors in conventional and input–output-based life-cycle inventories. J Ind Ecol 4:127–148
Lenzen M, Murray SA, Korte B, Dey CJ (2003) Environmental impact assessment including indirect effects—a case study using input–output analysis. Environ Impact Assess Rev 23:263–282
Lenzen M, Pade L-L, Munksgaard J (2004) CO2 multipliers in multi-region input–output models. Econ Syst Res 16:391–412
Leontief W (1970) Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an input–output approach. Rev Econ Stat 52:262–271
Matthews HS, Lave LB (2000) Applications of environmental valuation for determining externality costs. Environ Sci Technol 34:1390–1395
Matthews HS, Hendrickson CT, Weber CL (2008) The importance of carbon footprint estimation boundaries. Environ Sci Technol 42:5839–5842
McDonald GW, Patterson MG (2004) Ecological footprints and interdependencies of New Zealand regions. Ecol Econ 50:49–67
Miller RE, Blair PD (2009) Input–output analysis: foundations and extensions, 2nd edn. Cambridge University, Cambridge
NRC (2009) Sustainable critical infrastructure systems: a framework for meeting 21st century imperatives. Washington DC
Ochoa L, Hendrickson C, Asce M, Matthews HS (2002) Economic Input–output Life-cycle Assessment of U.S. Residential Buildings. pp 132–138
Onat NC, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2014b) Scope-based carbon footprint analysis of U.S. residential and commercial buildings: an input–output hybrid life cycle assessment approach. Build Environ 72:53–62
Peters GP (2010) Carbon footprints and embodied carbon at multiple scales. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:245–250
Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2012a) Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1653–1672
Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2012b) Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2). Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1686–1697
Scheuer C, Keoleian GA, Reppe P (2003) Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications. Energy Build 35:1049–1064
Sharma A, Saxena A, Sethi M et al (2011) Life cycle assessment of buildings: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:871–875
Sharrard AL, Matthews HS, Ries RJ (2008) Estimating construction project environmental effects using an input–output-based hybrid life-cycle assessment model. J Infrastruct Syst 14:327–336
Suh S, Lippiatt BC (2012) Framework for hybrid life cycle inventory databases: a case study on the building for environmental and economic sustainability (BEES) database. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:604–612
Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ et al (2004) System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38:657–664
Tatari O, Kucukvar M (2012) Sustainability assessment of U.S. construction sectors: ecosystems perspective. J Constr Eng Manag 138:918–922
Tatari O, Nazzal M, Kucukvar M (2012) Comparative sustainability assessment of warm-mix asphalts: a thermodynamic based hybrid life cycle analysis. Resour Conserv Recycl 58:18–24
Transportation Energy Databook (2011a) Car Operating Cost per Mile, 1985–2011. Table 10.13
Transportation Energy Databook (2011b) Fixed Car Operating Costs per Year, 1975–2011. Table 10.14
Turner K, Lenzen M, Wiedmann T, Barrett J (2007) Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities—part 1: a technical note on combining input–output and ecological footprint analysis. Ecol Econ 62:37–44
United Nations (1999) UN (1999) Studies in methods: handbook of national accounting. New York, USA
U.S. EIA (Energy Information Administration) (2013) Annual Energy Outlook 2013. Retrieved from http://​eia.​gov. Accessed 5 May 2013
USGS (2009) Use of minerals and materials in the United States from 1900 through 2006
Van Ooteghem K, Xu L (2012) The life-cycle assessment of a single-storey retail building in Canada. Build Environ 49:212–226
Wackernagel M, Onisto L, Bello P et al (1999) National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecol Econ 29:375–390
Waehrer GM, Dong XS, Miller T et al (2007) Costs of occupational injuries in construction in the United States. Accid Anal Prev 39:1258–1266
Weber CL, Matthews HS (2008a) Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 42:3508–3513
Weber CL, Matthews HS (2008b) Quantifying the global and distributional aspects of American household carbon footprint. Ecol Econ 66:379–391
Wiedmann T (2009) A review of recent multi-region input–output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting. Ecol Econ 69:211–222
Wiedmann T, Lenzen M (2006) Triple-bottom-line accounting of social, economic and environmental indicators—a new life-cycle software tool for UK businesses. Bottomline pp 1–13
Wiedmann T, Lenzen M (2009) Unravelling the impacts of supply chains—a new triple-bottom-line accounting approach and software tool. Manag Account Clean Prod 24:65–90
Wiedmann T, Minx J, Barrett J, Wackernagel M (2006) Allocating ecological footprints to final consumption categories with input–output analysis. Ecol Econ 56:28–48
Wiedmann TO, Lenzen M, Barrett JR (2009) Companies on the scale: comparing and benchmarking the sustainability performance of businesses. J Ind Ecol 13:361–383
Wiedmann TO, Suh S, Feng K et al (2011) Application of hybrid life cycle approaches to emerging energy technologies—the case of wind power in the UK. Environ Sci Technol 45:5900–5907
Williams E (2004) Energy intensity of computer manufacturing: hybrid assessment combining process and economic input–output methods. Environ Sci Technol 38:6166–6174
Wood R, Garnett S (2010) Regional sustainability in Northern Australia—a quantitative assessment of social, economic and environmental impacts. Ecol Econ 69:1877–1882
You F, Hu D, Zhang H et al (2011) Carbon emissions in the life cycle of urban building system in China—a case study of residential buildings. Ecol Complex 8:201–212
Zamagni A (2012) Life cycle assessment and sustainability. Int J Life Cycle Assess 86:256–263
Zamagni A, Guinée J, Masoni P, Heijungs R (2012) Life cycle sustainability analysis. In life cycle assessment handbook: a guide for environmentally sustainable products. doi: 10.​1002/​9781118528372
Zhang Y, Baral A, Bakshi BR (2010) Accounting for ecosystem services in life cycle assessment. Part II: toward an ecologically based LCA. Environ Sci Technol 44:2624–2631
Metadata
Title
Integrating triple bottom line input–output analysis into life cycle sustainability assessment framework: the case for US buildings
Authors
Nuri Cihat Onat
Murat Kucukvar
Omer Tatari
Publication date
01-08-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment / Issue 8/2014
Print ISSN: 0948-3349
Electronic ISSN: 1614-7502
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0753-y

Other articles of this Issue 8/2014

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8/2014 Go to the issue

Erratum

Erratum to: Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: findings of the scoping phase

SOCIETAL LCA

Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle assessment. Part 1: methodological framework

SOCIETAL LCA

Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach

WOOD AND OTHER RENEWABLE RESOURCES

LCA for assessing environmental benefit of eco-design strategies and forest wood short supply chain: a furniture case study

WOOD AND OTHER RENEWABLE RESOURCES

Forestry operations in the alpine context. Life cycle assessment to support the integrated assessment of forest wood short supply chain

COMMENTARY AND DISCUSSION ARTICLE

Moving towards an Egyptian national life cycle inventory database