Carbon footprint assessment of a wood multi-residential building considering biogenic carbon

Result code in IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F68407700%3A21720%2F23%3A00365315" target="_blank" >RIV/68407700:21720/23:00365315 - isvavai.cz</a>

Result on the web

<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136834" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136834</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136834" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136834</a>

Result language

angličtina

Original language name

Carbon footprint assessment of a wood multi-residential building considering biogenic carbon

Original language description

Wood and other bio-based building materials are often perceived as a good choice from a climate mitigation perspective. This article compares the life cycle assessment of the same multi-residential building from the perspective of 16 countries participating in the international project Annex 72 of the International Energy Agency to determine the effects of different datasets and methods of accounting for biogenic carbon in wood construction. Three assessment methods are herein considered: two recognized in the standards (the so-called 0/0 method and -1/+1 method) and a variation of the latter (-1/+1* method) used in Australia, Canada, France, and New Zealand. The 0/0 method considers neither fixation in the production stage nor releases of biogenic carbon at the end of a wood product's life. In contrast, the -1/+1 method accounts for the fixation of biogenic carbon in the production stage and its release in the end-of-life stage, irrespective of the disposal scenario (recycling, incineration or landfill). The -1/+1 method assumes that landfills offer only a temporary sequestration of carbon. In the -1/+1* variation, landfills and recycling are considered a partly permanent sequestration of biogenic carbon and thus fewer emissions are accounted for in the end-of-life stage. We examine the variability of the calculated life cycle-based greenhouse gas emissions calculated for a case study building by each participating country, within the same assessment method and across the methods. The results vary substantially. The main reasons for deviations are whether or not landfills and recycling are considered a partly permanent sequestration of biogenic carbon and a mismatch in the biogenic carbon balance. Our findings support the need for further research and to develop practical guidelines to harmonize life cycle assessment methods of buildings with bio-based materials.

Czech name

—

Czech description

—

Type

J_imp - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database

CEP classification

—

OECD FORD branch

20101 - Civil engineering

Project

<a href="/en/project/LTT19022" target="_blank" >LTT19022: Czech participation in the Annex 72 of the International Energy Agency</a><br>

Continuities

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Publication year

2023

Confidentiality

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Name of the periodical

Journal of Cleaner Production

ISSN

0959-6526

e-ISSN

1879-1786

Volume of the periodical

404

Issue of the periodical within the volume

March

Country of publishing house

NL - THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS

Number of pages

33

Pages from-to

—

UT code for WoS article

000981021300001

EID of the result in the Scopus database

2-s2.0-85151518576