Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Comparing the midpoint and endpoint approaches based on ReCiPe—a study of commercial buildings in Hong Kong

  • LCIA OF IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOSYSTEMS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been increasingly implemented in analyzing the environmental performance of buildings and construction projects. To assess the life cycle environmental performance, decision-makers may adopt the two life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) approaches, namely the midpoint and endpoint models. Any imprudent usage of the two approaches may affect the assessment results and thus lead to misleading findings. ReCiPe, a well-known work, includes a package of LCIA methods to provide assessments on both midpoint and endpoint levels. This study compares different potential LCIA results using the midpoint and endpoint approaches of ReCiPe based on the assessment of a commercial building in Hong Kong.

Methods

This paper examines 23 materials accounting for over 99 % of the environmental impacts of all the materials consumed in commercial buildings in Hong Kong. The midpoint and endpoint results are compared at the normalization level. A commercial building in Hong Kong is further studied to provide insights as a real case study. The ranking of impact categories and the contributions from various construction materials are examined for the commercial building. Influence due to the weighting factors is discussed.

Results and discussion

Normalization results of individual impact categories of the midpoint and endpoint approaches are consistent for the selected construction materials. The difference in the two approaches can be detected when several impact categories are considered. The ranking of materials is slightly different under the two approaches. The ranking of impact categories demonstrates completely different features. In the case study of a commercial building in Hong Kong, the contributions from subprocesses are different at the midpoint and endpoint. The weighting factors can determine not only the contributions of the damage categories to the total environment, but also the value of a single score.

Conclusions

In this research, the midpoint and endpoint approaches are compared using ReCiPe. Information is whittled down from the inventories to a single score. Midpoint results are comprehensive while endpoint results are concise. The endpoint approach which provides additional information of damage should be used as a supplementary to the midpoint model. When endpoint results are asked for, a LCIA method like ReCiPe that provides both the midpoint and endpoint analysis is recommended. This study can assist LCA designers to interpret the midpoint and endpoint results, in particular, for the assessment of commercial buildings in Hong Kong.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Amani P, Schiefer G (2011) Review on suitability of available LCIA methodologies for assessing environmental impact of the food sector. Int J Food Syst Dyn 2(2):194–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Bare JC (2010) Life cycle impact assessment research developments and needs. Clean Techn Environ Policy 12(4):341–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bare JC, Gloria TP (2006) Critical analysis of the mathematical relationships and comprehensiveness of life cycle impact assessment approaches. Environ Sci Technol 40(4):1104–1113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Pennington DW, de Haes HAU (2000) Midpoints versus endpoints: the sacrifices and benefits. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(6):319–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2011) Correlation analysis of life cycle impact assessment indicators measuring resource use. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(1):74–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolin CA, Smith ST (2011) Life cycle assessment of borate-treated lumber with comparison to galvanized steel framing. J Clean Prod 19(6):630–639

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bovea MD, Diaz-Albo E, Gallardo A, Colomer FJ, Serrano J (2009) Environmental performance of ceramic tiles: improvement proposals. Mater Des 31:35–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brent AC, Hietkamp S (2003) Comparative evaluation of life cycle impact assessment methods with a South African case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(1):27–38

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cavalett O, Chagas MF, Seabra JEA, Bonomi A (2013) Comparative LCA of ethanol versus gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(3):647–658

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • CEN (2012) BS EN 15804:2012 Sustainability of construction works—environmental product declarations—core rules for the product category of construction products. European Standard. European Committee for Standardization (CEN)

  • Collins F (2010) Inclusion of carbonation during the life cycle of built and recycled concrete: influence on their carbon footprint. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(6):549–556

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dong YH, Wong CTC, Ng ST, Wong JMW (2013) Life cycle assessment of precast concrete units. Paper presented at the International Conference on Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering Madrid, Spain, March 28–29, 2013

  • Dreyer LC, Niemann AL, Hauschild MZ (2003) Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(4):191–200

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • EMSD (2006) Consultancy study on life cycle energy analysis of building construction. Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Hong Kong

  • EPA (2003) Tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts (TRACI): user’s guide and system documentation. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio

  • Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower DJM, Sanjayan JG (2007) Green house gas emissions due to concrete manufacture. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(5):282–288

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H, Doka G, Heck T, Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M (2007) Overview and methodology. Ecoinvent report. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland

  • Geyer R, Stoms DM, Lindner JP, Davis FW, Wittstock B (2010) Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of land use. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(5):454–467

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: characterisation, first edition. Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtleijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, The Netherlands

  • Goedkoop M, Spriensma R, van Volkshuisvesting M, en Milieubeheer RO, Communicatie CD (1999) The Eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtleijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, The Netherlands

  • Guinée J (ed) (2001) Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO standards. Center of Environmental Science - Leiden University (CML), The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond GP, Jones CI (2008) Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials. Energy 161(2):87–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Goedkoop M, Struijs J, Effting S, Sevenster M, Huppes G (2003) Towards a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report of the first project phase: design of the new method VROM report

  • Hofstetter P (1998) Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment: a structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere, and valuesphere. Doctoral Thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Zurich

  • Horvath A (2004) Construction materials and the environment. Annu Rev Environ Resour 29:181–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang T, Shi F, Tanikawa H, Fei J, Han J (2013) Materials demand and environmental impact of buildings construction and demolition in China based on dynamic material flow analysis. Resour Conserv Recycl 72:91–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huberman N, Pearlmutter D (2008) A life-cycle energy analysis of building materials in the Negev desert. Energy Build 40(5):837–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunkeler D, Lichtenvort K, Rebitzer G, Ciroth A, Europe S (2008) Environmental life cycle costing. SETAC, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huntzinger DN, Eatmon TD (2009) A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies. J Clean Prod 17:668–675

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ibbotson S, Kara S (2013) LCA case study. Part 1: cradle-to-grave environmental footprint analysis of composites and stainless steel I-beams. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):208–217

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ILCD (2011) Recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context-based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors. Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Joint Research Centre, European Commission

  • Irfan M (2011) Carbon footprint of ready mix concrete and the role of environmental classification systems. Master Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden

  • ISO (2006a) ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland

  • ISO (2006b) ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland

  • ISO (2010) BS EN ISO 14025:2010 Environmental labels and declarations—type III environmental declarations—principles and procedures. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland

  • Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Kuriyama K, Inaba A (2012) Statistical analysis for the development of national average weighting factors—visualization of the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(4):488–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):324–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulahcioglu T, Dang J, Toklu C (2012) A 3D analyzer for BIM-enabled life cycle assessment of the whole process of construction. HVAC&R Res 18(1–2):283–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Landis AE, Bilec MM, Rajagopalan N (2009) Life cycle assessment for evaluating green products and materials. Paper presented at the US-Japan Workshop on LCA of Sustainable Infrastructure Materials, Sapporo, Japan, October 21–22

  • Landis AE, Theis TL (2008) Comparison of life cycle impact assessment tools in the case of biofuels. Paper presented at the IEEE international symposium on electronics and the environment, San Francisco, CA, May 19–22

  • Lee K, Tae S, Shin S (2009) Development of a life cycle assessment program for building (SUSB-LCA) in South Korea. Renew Sust Energy Rev 13(8):1994–2002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menzies GF (2013) Life cycle assessment of timber, modified timber and aluminium-clad timber windows. Institute for Building and Urban Design, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer C (2009) The greening of the concrete industry. Cem Concr Compos 31(8):601–605

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro H, Freire F (2012) Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls: comparison of three impact assessment methods. Energy Build 47:572–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notarnicola B, Huppes G, van den Berg NW (1998) Evaluating options in LCA: the emergence of conflicting paradigms for impact assessment and evaluation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(5):289–300

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • NREL (2004) U.S. LCI database project—user’s guide. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado

  • Ortiz O, Pasqualino JC, Díez G, Castells F (2010) The environmental impact of the construction phase: an application to composite walls from a life cycle perspective. Resour Conserv Recycl 54(11):832–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington D, Potting J, Finnveden G, Lindeijer E, Jolliet O, Rydberg T, Rebitzer G (2004) Life cycle assessment. Part 2: current impact assessment practice. Environ Int 30(5):721–739

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pizzol M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Thomsen M (2011) Impacts of metals on human health: a comparison between nine different methodologies for life cycle impact assessment(LCIA). J Clean Prod 19(6–7):646–656

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Puettmann ME, Oneil E, Wilson JB, Johnson LR (2012) Cradle to gate life cycle assessment of softwood plywood production from the Southeast. CORRIM Report Update

  • Rajagopalan N, Bilec MM, 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 

  • Ramesh T, Prakash R, Shukla K (2010) Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an overview. Energy Build 42(10):1592–1600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renou S, Thomas J, Aoustin E, Pons M (2008) Influence of impact assessment methods in wastewater treatment LCA. J Clean Prod 16(10):1098–1105

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze C, Jödicke A, Scheringer M, Margni M, Jolliet O, Hungerbühler K, Matthies M (2001) Comparison of different life—cycle impact assessment methods for aquatic ecotoxicity. Environ Toxicol Chem 20(9):2122–2132

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sleeswijk AW, Van Oers LFCM, Guinée JB, Struijs J, Huijbregts MAJ (2008) Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: an LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. Sci Total Environ 390(1):227–240

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steen B (1999) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development(EPS). Version 2000—general system characteristics. Centre for Environmental Assessment of Products and Material Systems, Gothenburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Taborianski VM, Prado RT (2012) Methodology of CO2 emission evaluation in the life cycle of office building façades. Environ Impact Assess Rev 33(1):41–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environmental Programme, Paris, France

  • UNEP (2012) Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—making informed choices on products. United Nations Environmental Programme, Paris

  • Van den Heede P, De Belie N (2012) Environmental impact and life cycle assessment (LCA) of traditional and ‘green’ concretes: literature review and theoretical calculations. Cem Concr Compos 34(4):431–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi S, Kurisu KH, Hanaki K (2011) Life cycle impact assessment and interpretation of municipal solid waste management scenarios based on the midpoint and endpoint approaches. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):652–668

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zabalza Bribián I, Valero Capilla A, Aranda Usón A (2011) Life cycle assessment of building materials: comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Build Environ 46(5):1133–1140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang X, Shen L, Zhang L (2013) Life cycle assessment of the air emissions during building construction process: a case study in Hong Kong. Renew Sust Energy Rev 17:160–169

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Z, Wu X, Yang X, Zhu Y (2006) BEPAS—a life cycle building environmental performance assessment model. Build Environ 41(5):669–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zygomalas I, Efthymiou E, Baniotopoulos C, Blok R (2012) A newly developed life cycle inventory (LCI) database for commonly used structural steel components. Struct Infrastruct Eng 8(12):1173–1181

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Research Grants Council of the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for financially supporting this research project through the General Research Fund (Grant No.: 7160/11).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China

    S. Thomas Ng

Authors
  1. Ya Hong Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Thomas Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Thomas Ng.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Mark Huijbregts

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dong, Y.H., Ng, S.T. Comparing the midpoint and endpoint approaches based on ReCiPe—a study of commercial buildings in Hong Kong. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19, 1409–1423 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0743-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0743-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation