Author ORCID Identifier

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2829-3525

Document Type

Article

Disciplines

Architecture engineering, Construction engineering

Publication Details

Journal of Building Survey, Appraisal & Valuation Volume 13 Number 2 2024

doi:10.69554/EGLU5674

Abstract

European Union (EU) policy and initiatives are driving both building renovation and the uptake of low-embodied carbon and circular design in the construction sector. The European Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) recast (2021) introduces global warming potential (GWP) methodology, and the future state will likely be embodied carbon targets for which life cycle assessment (LCA) of buildings will be required. External wall insulation (EWI) will have an important role to play in meeting targets. In this context, this paper compares the carbon emission payoff of three alternative EWI strategies that address conventional, low-carbon and circular solutions to EWI respectively, in the retrofit of an existing dwelling. The circular strategy is based on design for disassembly (DfD). Whereas standard LCA is based on a single building life cycle, the literature reviewed shows that the environmental impact assessment of DfD requires a multi-life cycle approach. In the absence of standardised methods for assessment, four multi-cycle LCA methods are selected and applied holistically in a case study investigation. Three allocation methods, 100:0, linear degressive (LD) and enhanced linear degressive (CELD), provide a range of emissions from ‘conservative’ to ‘best case’ over three building life cycles and the fourth method, the Van Gulck method, assesses the benefits of circularity through the concept of ‘multi-cycling’ based on one building life cycle. As each method of assessment will deliver different results, carbon emission payoff is not a fixed value. Findings show that with multiple use, the circular strategy pays off due to avoided production emissions and benefits from end-of-life (EoL) processes that DfD facilitates, that the upfront carbon cost of the circular strategy is minor relative to the carbon emission savings that reuse brings, and that the margin of improvement relative to the alternative strategies increases with each subsequent reuse.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.69554/EGLU5674

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.

Download
Contact the Author


Share

COinS