Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Life cycle assessment use in the North American building community: summary of findings from a 2011/2012 survey

  • BUILDING COMPONENTS AND BUILDINGS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) can reveal valuable information pertaining to materials, water, and energy that will be consumed throughout a building’s entire predicted life span; however, it is often underutilized in practice. Individuals in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) community are in positions to influence the use of LCA. Thus, this article seeks to clarify the state of knowledge of LCA among this population and understand the perceived benefits of and barriers to its application.

Methods

Building upon the researchers’ results using focus groups, a national survey of AEC professionals, owners/clients, and related groups was developed to educe knowledge and perceptions within the AEC community. Existing literature suggests time and data demands, complexity, and cost to benefit ratio uncertainty among current LCA framework shortcomings. The survey was structured to further investigate these findings. Furthermore, the survey recorded both a self-assessed and measured level of each respondent’s LCA understanding, which served as a validation for other responses. The information collected spanned a broad range, including LCA knowledge, LCA experience, perceived benefits and barriers to LCA adoption, software tool utilization, and LCA in conjunction with sustainability, in general, and with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program.

Results and discussion

Respondents represented over a dozen AEC professions, approximately half being architects and engineers. Ninety percent reported having at least moderate familiarity with sustainability, and 62 % considered sustainability important in their projects for at least 4 years. Only 33 % of those individuals, however, used LCA in half of their projects or more, predominantly for energy analysis. A substantial percentage of respondents exhibited competency in defining LCA, but the disconnect between awareness and the use of LCA can be largely attributed to a perceived lack of demand. However, 86 % of respondents who currently use LCA reported being at least moderately likely to increase their usage of LCA in the future.

Conclusions

The ability of an LCA to advance sustainability by informing decision-making and provide environmental impact information using a long-term, holistic perspective is valuable to most potential users. Additional benefits and barriers specific to the building sector were revealed in this study, and the factors that may contribute to these perceptions were explored, the knowledge of which can be beneficial in efforts to optimize LCA adoption. Finally, since Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) version 4.0 explicitly includes LCA, we anticipate a greater integration and use of LCA in the AEC community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bilec MM, Ries RJ, Matthews HS (2010) Life-cycle assessment modeling of construction processes for buildings. J Infrastruct Syst 16(3):199–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper JS, Fava JA (2006) Life-cycle assessment practitioner survey: summary of results. J Ind Ecol 10(4):12–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper J, Fava J, Baer S (2008) Life cycle assessments of buildings in North America. J Ind Ecol 12(1):7–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2007) Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009). Green Building Basic Information http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/about.htm. Accessed November 2014

  • Fowler FJ (2009) Survey research methods. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, i.e. Thousand Oaks, Calif

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves RM (2004) Survey methodology. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Guggemos AA, Horvath A (2005) Comparison of environmental effects of steel- and concrete-framed buildings. J Infrastruct Syst 11(2):93–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products. University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstetter P, Mettier TM (2003) What users want and may need: insights from a survey of users of a life-cycle tool. J Ind Ecol 7(2):79–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junnila S (2008) Life cycle management of energy-consuming products in companies using IO-LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(5):432–439

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Junnila S, Horvath A (2003) Life-cycle environmental effects of an office building. J Infrastruct Syst 9(4):157–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubba S (2012) Handbook of green building design and construction LEED, BREEAM, and Green Globes. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Malmqvist T, Glaumann M, Scarpellini S, Zabalza I, Aranda A, Llera E, Díaz S (2011) Life cycle assessment in buildings: the ENSLIC simplified method and guidelines. Energy 36(4):1900–1907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ochoa L, Hendrickson C, Matthews HC (2002) Economic input-output life-cycle assessment of U.S. residential buildings. J Infrastruct Syst 8(4):132–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopalan N, Bilec M, Landis AE (2010) Residential life cycle assessment modeling: comparative case study of insulating concrete forms and traditional building materials. J Green Build 5(3):95–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders CL, Landis AE, Mecca LP, Jones AK, Schaefer LA, Bilec MM (2013) Analyzing the practice of life cycle assessment: focus on the building sector. J Ind Ecol 17(5):777–788

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scheuer C, Keoleian G, Reppe P (2003) Life cycle energy and environ performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications. Energy Build 35:1049–1064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharrard AL, Matthews S, Reis R (2008) Estimating construction project environmental effects using an input-output-based hybrid life-cycle assessment model. J Infrastruct Syst 14(4):327–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoop I, Billiet J et al (2010) Improving survey response lessons learned from the European Social Survey. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Energy (2011). 2010 Buildings Energy Data Book. http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/. Accessed November 2014

  • Wagner LA (2002) Materials in the economy—material flows, scarcity, and the environment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research was funded by the National Science Foundation (grant award EFRI-1038139) and by a seed grant from the Mascaro Center for Sustainable Innovation at the University of Pittsburgh. Assistance with survey development, distribution, and data collection was provided by the University of Pittsburgh University Center for Social and Urban Research (UCSUR). The authors would like to thank the respondents to the survey for their effort, opinions, and insights.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, 3700 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA

    Maureen A. Olinzock, William O. Collinge & Melissa M. Bilec

  2. School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 875306, Tempe, AZ, 85287-5306, USA

    Amy E. Landis

  3. Mascaro Construction Company LP, 1720 Metropolitan St, Pittsburgh, PA, 15233, USA

    Christi L. Saunders

  4. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Alex K. Jones

  5. Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Laura A. Schaefer

Authors
  1. Maureen A. Olinzock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy E. Landis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christi L. Saunders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. William O. Collinge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alex K. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Laura A. Schaefer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Melissa M. Bilec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa M. Bilec.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Guillaume Habert

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 75 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 108 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 59 kb)

ESM 4

(XLSX 13 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Olinzock, M.A., Landis, A.E., Saunders, C.L. et al. Life cycle assessment use in the North American building community: summary of findings from a 2011/2012 survey. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20, 318–331 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0834-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0834-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation