Andersen, Camilla Marlene Ernst

Birgisdottir, Harpa

Kanafani, Kai

Rasmussen, Freja Nygaard

Zimmermann, Regitze Kjær

English

    Aalborg UniversitetCombining LCA with circular performance for environmental building productassessmentKanafani, Kai; Zimmermann, Regitze Kjær; Andersen, Camilla Marlene Ernst; Birgisdottir,Harpa; Rasmussen, Freja NygaardPublication date:2020Link to publication from Aalborg UniversityCitation for published version (APA):Kanafani, K., Zimmermann, R. K., Andersen, C. M. E., Birgisdottir, H., & Rasmussen, F. N. (2020). CombiningLCA with circular performance for environmental building product assessment. Poster presented at BEYOND2020 - World Sustainable Built Environment Conference (WSBE), Gothenburg, Sweden.https://beyond2020.se/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/POSTER-29.pdfGeneral rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.            ? Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.            ? You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain            ? You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at vbn@aub.aau.dk providing details, and we will remove access tothe work immediately and investigate your claim.Downloaded from vbn.aau.dk on: November 25, 2020Poster template by ResearchPosters.co.zaCombining LCA with circular performance for                 environmental building product assessment                                        Kai Kanafani, Regitze K. Zimmermann, Camilla E. Andersen, Harpa Birgisdóttir, Freja N. RasmussenDanish Building Research Institute (Aalborg University)ConclusionContact InformationKai KanafaniEmailReference to posterkak@sbi.aau.dkhttps://vbn.aau.dk/da/persons/140959ReferencesObjectives■ A conceptual proposal for combining environmental and circular performance indicators for building products■ A visual labelling of indicators as guidance for decision making by practitionersA draft for four indicators, which combine life cycle environmental assessment and circular potentials, has been presented. Particular weight was laid on the current situation, where more and more circular solutions are being tested meeting the demand for innovations in light of public sustainability goals. By assessing environmental, circular and feasibility aspects, these indicators are targeted to building practitioners making design decisions. Thus, a visual communication of the indicators is proposed, inspired by product label information design.  The LCA-based method used for environmental footprinting has been published elsewhere [15]. The development of assessment criteria underlying the other three indicators is a draft proposal and requires further development and testing.One of the puzzle pieces for increased resource efficiency is available knowledge on the environmental performance of building products, which guides practitioners in making greener decisions. Presently, there applicable information on environmental impacts and circular economy potential of building products is often not sufficient and product labels and certification schemes use different methods. At the same time, the circular economy (CE) movement has initiated experimental building and product innovations beyond established approval procedures and supply chains. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an internationally standardised [4, 5] and widely adopted approach for building environmental assessment. However, the method is not fully developed regarding circular processes and multiple life cycles in the building sector. Furthermore, circular aspects in building and product cycles are too complex to communicate in a way supporting practitioner decisions. If the circular potential of building products is to become an influential parameter for building design, easy to understand and reliable guidance, comparable with the U-value, is needed [4]. A number of circularity metrics exist in the research community, however, often lacking the integration of environmental impact assessment methods or using alternative approaches [7]. The organisations behind major initiatives on circular material flows, cradle-to-cradle [8] and circular economy [8], have recently extended their conceptual approach with performance indicators for practical purposes [10, 11]. These schemes base the environmental assessment on the LCA-method aside more specific circularity criteria. Another approach, The Material-Cycle-Status [12] is a visual multiple-criteria indicator developed for building practitioners. It rates the circular potential, End of Life (EoL) scenarios, actual versus potential recycling content and the biotic closed-loop potential. The building sector is consuming considerable amounts of energy and raw materials compared with other economic sectors. Building operational energy accounts for about 40% of the energy consumption and 36% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the EU [1]. Furthermore, the construction sector is generating 38% of waste [2] and consuming 32% of material resources in the EU [3]. These challenges correspond to two of the United Nations Sustainable Development goals. Goal no. 12 on Climate Action includes the target of mitigating climate change, while goal no. 13 on Responsible Consumption and Production specifies two 2030 targets: Achieving a sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources and substantially reducing waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse. Circularity demandCircularity supplyProduct performance indicatorsThe scope should support decision making regarding environmental impacts, resource use and circular economy potential as well as helping the practitioner evaluating the risk of novel solutions. The proposed four indicators combine LCA with circularity for accommodating two types of interest: Product-level environmental performance based on LCA and a circular performance on the product as well as systemic level. Finally, a risk evaluation supplements the indicators. Since circular building solutions often lack precedence, performance can hardly been evaluated ignoring technical and functional reliability.The circular value aligns to the EU waste hierarchy [13] including the relevant steps reuse, recycling, recovery and disposal in the order of priority. Material combinations may be represented by each flow separately.[1] European Commission (2019), Factsheet: the energy performance of buildings directive[2] Eurostat, retrieved 17-10-2019 from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database[3] The European Commission (2018), European construction sector observatory - analytical report -improving energy and resource efficiency [4] Kirchherr, J. & van Santen, R. (2019), Research on the circular economy: a critique of the field[5] CEN (2019), EN 15804:2012+A2:2019 –Sustainability of construction works – Environmental product declaration – core rules for the product category of construction products[6] CEN (2011), EN 15978:2011 – Sustainability of construction works – Assessment of environmental performance of buildings – calculation method[7] Corona, B. et al. (2019), Towards sustainable development through the circular economy: A review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics[8] Braungart, M. & McDonough, W. (2008), Cradle to cradle[9] Ellen McArthur Foundation (2013), Towards the circular economy[10] Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute (2019), Cradle to cradle product standard v4 (draft)[11] Ellen McArthur Foundation (2015), Circularity indicators[12] Hillebrandt, A. et al. (2018), Atlas recycling –Gebäude als Materialressource[13] EU Directive 2008/98/EC [14] Zampori, L. and Pant, R., (2019), Suggestions for updating the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method[15] Zimmermann, R. K. et al. (2020), LCA-Framework to Evaluate Circular Economy Strategies in the Built Environment (accepted conference paper)[16] Circularity City project website (in Danish): http://www.circularitycity.dk[17] Sack-Nielsen, T. , Birgisdottir, H. et al. (2019), Dialogværktøjet (in Danish)[18] Andersen, C. E. et al. (2020), Circular economy in the built environment using life cycle assessment: a case study (accepted conference poster) The supply side of circularity is the potential supply as material source for future product cycles. The circular value is indicated by one of the three symbols (biotic loop, technical loop, cascade use) or a combination of them. It includes both the EoL scenario and supporting material loops or cascades in an infinite circular economy perspective. For both scenarios apply two variants: A business-as-usual scenario based on current average technology and practice and a technically optimised scenario based on present cutting edge technology. The concept for multiple future cycles resemble the logic of replacements in in the conventional LCA framework, however without defined study period. A long-term stable circular value across subsequent cycles can be compared to a long service life in the context of replacements. Products with secondary material content demand existing buildings as material banks. Since the building product phase happens at the beginning of a building cycle, the immediate environmental effect is indicated and can be influenced by material choice. Two assessment criteria apply: The percentage of secondary materials related to virgin material use and the circular value of the secondary materials.Environmental footprintThis indicator represents the environmental performance of the respective product cycle based on LCA [5, 6]. Scenarios and preconditions are based on the two circularity indicators. The assessment of secondary material sources must follow the latest standardisation [6] and guidelines [14]. The Global Warming Potential, given as CO2 equivalent (CO2e) is selected for demonstration reasons and represents any relevant impact or resource category. AcknowledgementsThe presented work has been conducted in the project Circularity City [16], which has received funding by the Central Denmark Region and the European Union. In the project, the proposed indicators have been applied to a catalogue of known and experimental circular building products [17]. The catalogue is based on a LCA-modelling of the environmental footprint indicator [18]. Finally, the method has been tested in a case study of a school building [15].Environmental targetsProblem formulationMaturityThis indicator is independent from the environmental and circularity assessment. Allocating risk among parties is particularly relevant when substituting proven solutions with non-standard products. The assessment results in a maturity level on a 3-step scale from the state of experimental to approved products. The result is a function of the assessment criteria technical level of development and market uptake. The first criterion evaluates the documented technical performance compared with a conventional product. The other criterion reflects, how established the product is on the marked, evaluated by market share and the duration of being on the market.

Combining LCA with circular performance for environmental building product assessment

https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/files/319641087/Kai_Kanafani_Aalborg_University.pdf

Combining LCA with circular performance for environmental building product assessment

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

VBN