Effect of Star Rating Improvement of Residential Buildings on Life Cycle Environmental Impacts and Costs
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Star Rating of Residential Buildings—A Critical Review
2.1. StarRating, DTS Provisions, and ESD Tools
2.2. Star Improvement Options
2.3. Life Cycle Environmental Impacts and Cost Assessment Studies
3. Methodology
3.1. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Approach
3.2. Life Cycle Costing Approach
4. Case Study House Selection
4.1. Case Study House
4.2. Alternative House Designs
4.3. Data Generation
4.4. LCA System Boundary
4.5. Construction
4.6. Operational Energy
4.7. Maintenance
4.8. Disposal
4.9. LCIA Method and Indicators
4.10. LCC Modeling Assumptions
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. LCA Results
5.2. LCC Results
6. Multi-Criterion Trade-Off between Star Rating, LCEI, and LCC
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Karimpour, M.; Belusko, M.; Xing, K.; Bruno, F. Minimising the life cycle energy of buildings: Review and analysis. Build. Environ. 2014, 73, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuéllar-Franca, R.M.; Azapagic, A. Environmental impacts of the UK residential sector: Life cycle assessment of houses. Build. Environ. 2012, 54, 86–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robati, M.; McCarthy, T.J.; Kokogiannakis, G. Integrated life cycle cost method for sustainable structural design by focusing on a benchmark office building in Australia. Energy Build. 2018, 166, 525–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaziolas, D.; Bekas, G.; Zygomalas, I.; Stavroulakis, G. Life cycle analysis and optimization of a timber building. Energy Procedia 2015, 83, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Islam, H.; Jollands, M.; Setunge, S.; Bhuiyan, M.A. Optimization approach of balancing life cycle cost and environmental impacts on residential building design. Energy Build. 2015, 87, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aye, L.; Ngo, T.; Crawford, R.H.; Gammampila, R.; Mendis, P. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building modules. Energy Build. 2012, 47, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berry, S.; Whaley, D.; Davidson, K.; Saman, W. Near zero energy homes–What do users think? Energy Policy 2014, 73, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sartori, I.; Napolitano, A.; Voss, K. Net zero energy buildings: A consistent definition framework. Energy Build. 2012, 48, 220–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bribián, I.Z.; Capilla, A.V.; Usón, A.A. Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 1133–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Mahecha, R.E.; Lucena, A.F.; Szklo, A.; Ferreira, P.; Vaz, A.I.F. Optimization model for evaluating on-site renewable technologies with storage in zero/nearly zero energy buildings. Energy Build. 2018, 172, 505–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Masi, R.F.; Gigante, A.; Vanoli, G.P. Are nZEB design solutions environmental sustainable? Sensitive analysis for building envelope configurations and photovoltaic integration in different climates. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 39, 102292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gold, S.; Rubik, F. Consumer attitudes towards timber as a construction material and towards timber frame houses–selected findings of a representative survey among the German population. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 303–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tushar, Q.; Bhuiyan, M.A.; Zhang, G. Energy simulation and modeling for window system: A comparative study of life cycle assessment and life cycle costing. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 330, 129936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, H.; Jollands, M.; Setunge, S.; Haque, N.; Bhuiyan, M.A. Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost implications for roofing and floor designs in residential buildings. Energy Build. 2015, 104, 250–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tushar, Q.; Bhuiyan, M.A.; Zhang, G.; Maqsood, T. An integrated approach of BIM-enabled LCA and energy simulation: The optimized solution towards sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 289, 125622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oktay, D. Design with the climate in housing environments: An analysis in Northern Cyprus. Build. Environ. 2002, 37, 1003–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seyfang, G. Community action for sustainable housing: Building a low-carbon future. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 7624–7633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, X.; Shen, L.; Wu, Y. Green strategy for gaining competitive advantage in housing development: A China study. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asadi, E.; Da Silva, M.G.; Antunes, C.H.; Dias, L. Multi-objective optimization for building retrofit strategies: A model and an application. Energy Build. 2012, 44, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W. A Simulation-Based Optimization System for Green Building Design. Ph.D. Thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Zachariah, J.-A.L. Towards Sustainable Homes through Optimization: An Approach to Balancing Life Cycle Environmental Impacts and Life Cycle Costs in Residential Buildings. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Atmaca, A. Life cycle assessment and cost analysis of residential buildings in south east of Turkey: Part 1—Review and methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 831–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pombo, O.; Allacker, K.; Rivela, B.; Neila, J. Sustainability assessment of energy saving measures: A multi-criteria approach for residential buildings retrofitting—A case study of the Spanish housing stock. Energy Build. 2016, 116, 384–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ristimäki, M.; Säynäjoki, A.; Heinonen, J.; Junnila, S. Combining life cycle costing and life cycle assessment for an analysis of a new residential district energy system design. Energy 2013, 63, 168–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; Lu, S.; Feng, W.; Zhai, X.; Li, X. Sustainable framework for buildings in cold regions of China considering life cycle cost and environmental impact as well as thermal comfort. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 3036–3050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, K.; Jiang, X.; Yu, J.; Tam, V.W.; Skitmore, M. Integration of life cycle assessment and life cycle cost using building information modeling: A critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 285, 125438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konstantinidou, C.A.; Lang, W.; Papadopoulos, A.M.; Santamouris, M. Life cycle and life cycle cost implications of integrated phase change materials in office buildings. Int. J. Energy Res. 2019, 43, 150–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stephan, A.; Stephan, L. Life cycle energy and cost analysis of embodied, operational and user-transport energy reduction measures for residential buildings. Appl. Energy 2016, 161, 445–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Säynäjoki, A.; Heinonen, J.; Junnila, S.; Horvath, A. Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector? Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 013001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morrissey, J.; Horne, R. Life cycle cost implications of energy efficiency measures in new residential buildings. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 915–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belusko, M.; O’Leary, T. Cost analyses of measures to improve residential energy ratings to 6 stars-playford North Development, South Australia. Australas. J. Constr. Econ. Build. 2010, 10, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Iyer-Raniga, U.; Wong, J.P.C. Evaluation of whole life cycle assessment for heritage buildings in Australia. Build. Environ. 2012, 47, 138–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, L.; Lin, B.; Zhu, Y.; Gu, D.; Huang, M.; Gai, J. Integrated assessment method for building life cycle environmental and economic performance. Build. Simul. 2008, 1, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guinée, J.B. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2002; Volume 7. [Google Scholar]
- Nissinen, A.; Grönroos, J.; Heiskanen, E.; Honkanen, A.; Katajajuuri, J.-M.; Kurppa, S.; Mäkinen, T.; Mäenpää, I.; Seppälä, J.; Timonen, P. Developing benchmarks for consumer-oriented life cycle assessment-based environmental information on products, services and consumption patterns. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 538–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, S.; Xu, Z.; Jun, G. Inventory analysis of LCA on steel-and concrete-construction office buildings. Energy Build. 2008, 40, 1188–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renouf, M.; Grant, T.; Sevenster, M.; Logie, J.; Ridoutt, B.; Ximenes, F.; Bengtsson, J.; Cowie, A.; Lane, J. Best Practice Guide for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) in Australia. Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society. 2015. Available online: www.alcas.asn.au (accessed on 3 August 2022).
- ISO 14040; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006; pp. 235–248.
- Building Code of Australia. National Construction Code (NCC) 2016; Australian Building Codes Board: Canberra, Australia, 2016.
- McLeod, P.; Fay, R. The cost effectiveness of housing thermal performance improvements in saving CO2-e. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2011, 54, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warren-Myers, G.; Bartak, E.; Cradduck, L. Observing energy rating stars through the Australian Consumer Law lens: How volume home builders’ advertising can fail consumers. Energy Policy 2020, 139, 111370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warren-Myers, G.; Kain, C.; Davidson, K. The wandering energy stars: The challenges of valuing energy efficiency in Australian housing. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 67, 101505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roh, S.; Tae, S.; Kim, R. Developing a Green Building Index (GBI) certification system to effectively reduce carbon emissions in South Korea’s building industry. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ballinger, J.A. The 5 star design rating system for thermally efficient, comfortable housing in Australia. Energy Build. 1988, 11, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reardon, C.; Milne, G.; McGee, C.; Downton, P. Your Home Technical Manual; Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency; Australian Government: Canberra, Australia, 2010.
- State of Victoria. Energy Smart Housing Manual; Sustainability Victoria: Melbourne, Australia, 2002.
- Kile, G.; Nambiar, E.; Brown, A. The rise and fall of research and development for the forest industry in Australia. Aust. For. 2014, 77, 142–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santamouris, M.; Mihalakakou, G.; Argiriou, A.; Asimakopoulos, D. On the efficiency of night ventilation techniques for thermostatically controlled buildings. Sol. Energy 1996, 56, 479–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrapnel, B. Scoping Study to Investigate Measures for Improving the Environmental Sustainability of Building Materials; Department of the Environment and Heritage; Australian Greenhouse Office: Canberra, Australia, 2006.
- Tushar, Q.; Bhuiyan, M.; Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G. Optimizing the energy consumption in a residential building at different climate zones: Towards sustainable decision making. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 634–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ICANZ. Insulation Handbook; Insulation Council of Australia and New Zealand: Melbourne, Australia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Australian Building Codes Board. Building Codes Board. Building Improvements to raise house energy ratings from 5.0 stars. In Constructive Concepts; Australian Building Codes Board: Canberra, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Carre, A.; Crossin, E. A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Two Multi Storey Residential Apartment Buildings; Forest & Wood Products Australia: Melbourne, Australia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Durlinger, B.; Crossin, E.; Wong, J.P.C. Life Cycle Assessment of a Cross Laminated Timber Building; Forest and Wood Products Australia: Melbourne, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ortiz-Rodríguez, O.; Castells, F.; Sonnemann, G. Life cycle assessment of two dwellings: One in Spain, a developed country, and one in Colombia, a country under development. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408, 2435–2443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Szalay, Z. Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Residential Buildings; Department of Building Energetics and Building Services; Budapest University of Technology and Economics: Budapest, Hungary, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Islam, H.; Jollands, M.; Setunge, S.; Ahmed, I.; Haque, N. Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost implications of wall assemblages designs. Energy Build. 2014, 84, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nemry, F.; Uihlein, A.; Colodel, C.M.; Wetzel, C.; Braune, A.; Wittstock, B.; Hasan, I.; Kreißig, J.; Gallon, N.; Niemeier, S. Options to reduce the environmental impacts of residential buildings in the European Union—Potential and costs. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 976–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muneron, L.M.; Hammad, A.W.; Najjar, M.K.; Haddad, A.; Vazquez, E.G. Comparison of the environmental performance of ceramic brick and concrete blocks in the vertical seals’ subsystem in residential buildings using life cycle assessment. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2021, 5, 100243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tharumarajah, A.; Grant, T. Australian national life cycle inventory database: Moving forward. In Proceedings of the Fifth ALCAS Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 22–24 November 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Newton, P.; Hampson, K.; Drogemuller, R. Technology, Design and Process Innovation in the Built Environment; Routledge: London, UK, 2009; Volume 10. [Google Scholar]
- Delsante, A. A Validation of the AccuRate Simulation Engine Using BESTEST; CSIRO: Canberra, Australia, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Deans, D.J. Discount Rates for Commonwealth Infrastructure Projects; Parliament House: Canberra, Australia, 2018.
- Rawlinsons Group. Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook; Rawlhouse Publishing: Perth, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Maxted, K. Rawlinsons Construction Cost Estimating; Rawlinsons (W.A): Rivervale, Australia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Hyland, J. Price Comparison Report Update 2011; Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator: Tasmania, Australia, 2011.
- AEMC. 2016 Residential Electricity Price Trends; Australian Energy Market Commission: Sydney, Australia, 2016.
- Shi, S.; Valadkhani, A.; Smyth, R.; Vahid, F. Dating the timeline of house price bubbles in Australian capital cities. Econ. Rec. 2016, 92, 590–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Staines, A. The Australian House Building Manual; Pinedale Press: Port Macquarie, Australia, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Hammond, G.; Jones, C. Inventory of Carbon & Energy: ICE; Sustainable Energy Research Team, Department of Mechanical Engineering; University of Bath: Bath, UK, 2008; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
- Lawson, W.R. Timber in Building Construction-Ecological Implications; Bond University: Robina, Australia, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, D.; Syme, M.; Seo, S.; Chan, W.Y.; Zhou, M.; Meddings, S. Development of an Embodied CO2 Emissions Module for AccuRate; Forest & Wood Products Australia: Melbourne, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Henriksen, J.E. The Value of Design in Reducing Energy Use and CO2-e Impact over the Life Cycle of a Detached Dwelling in a Temperate Climate. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Tushar, Q.; Bhuiyan, M.A.; Zhang, G.; Maqsood, T.; Tasmin, T. Application of a harmonized life cycle assessment method for supplementary cementitious materials in structural concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 316, 125850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AS/NZS 3823.2; Performance of Electrical Appliances—Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy Labelling and Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) Requirements. Standards Australia: Sydney, Australia, 2013.
- Teter, L. Bill for the Energy Efficiency of Electrical Appliances Equipment and Lighting Product Act No. 24 of 2016. Attorney General’s Office, Government Act, Republic of Vanuatu. 2017. Available online: http://eparliamentresource.gov.vu/jspui/handle/1/1299 (accessed on 27 September 2022).
- Wu, J.; Xu, Z.; Jiang, F. Analysis and development trends of Chinese energy efficiency standards for room air conditioners. Energy Policy 2019, 125, 368–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPART. Local Government Discount Rate. Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal; IPART: Sydney, Australia, 2022.
- McDougall, A. Melbourne 2030: A preliminary cost benefit assessment. Aust. Plan. 2007, 44, 16–25. [Google Scholar]
- Carre, A. A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Alternative Constructions of a Typical Australian House Design; Forest and Wood Products Australia: Melbourne, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Olivares, A.A.P.; Andres, A. Sustainability in Prefabricated Architecture: A Comparative Life Cycle Analysis of Container Architecture for Residential Structures: A Thesis Submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Architecture. Ph.D. Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Trivess, M. The Costs and Benefits of Zero Emission Housing; Modelling of Single Detached Houses in Melbourne; RMIT University: Melbourne, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
Study | System Description, Assumption, and System Boundary | LCEI (%) | Life Phases | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C | O | M | D | |||
[46] | Australian climate (Melbourne), two multi-storey residential apartment buildings, 7-star rating with 60-year lifetime; includes five different life cycle stages: product, construction, use, end of life and beyond building life cycle; use phase includes the effect of maintenance and operational heating/cooling, lighting, water use, and hot water; end-of-life phase includes waste in landfill and recovery from recycling; beyond building life cycle phase includes recovery of materials after the building is demolished; excludes onsite installation processes and apartment appliances, lift systems, etc. | Climate change | The % contribution ranges for the construction, product, use, end of life, and beyond building life cycle phases are 1–1, 8–12, 88–91, 1–2, and −2 to −2. | |||
Oz. dep. | The % contribution ranges for the construction, product, use, end of life, and beyond building life cycle phases are 12–13, 35–39, 43–52, 5–9, and −3 to −4. | |||||
[1] | Australian climate (Brisbane), variety of buildings with different star ratings with 50-years lifetime; excludes interior decorations and household appliances, includes renovation in maintenance; star rating specified; disposal phase includes transportation and materials to landfilling only, no recycling. | GHG | 34–41 | 54–63 | 7–11 | −5 to −6 |
CED | 35–40 | 44–52 | 10–14 | 1–1 | ||
Water | 54–63 | 1–2 | 35–43 | 0–0 | ||
Waste | 4–6 | 2–2 | 6–7 | 86–87 | ||
[47] | Australian climate (Melbourne), 9-storey apartment building and 6-star fictitious reference building, an average of 6.8-star rating apartment with 50-year lifetime; includes four different life cycle stages: materials, construction, use, and disposal; construction waste is omitted from the system boundary; use phase includes heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC), lighting and (hot) water use; disposal phase includes demolition of the building at the end of life and subsequent waste management (i.e., landfill and recycling); excludes maintenance, appliances, human labor, and capital equipment. | GWP | The % contribution ranges for the material, construction, use, and disposal phases are 10–12, 1–2, 83–88, and −1 to 5. | |||
EP | The % contribution ranges for the material, construction, use, and disposal phases are 21–27, 1–2, 75–77, and −1 to −3. | |||||
Water use | The % contribution ranges for the material, construction, use, and disposal phases are 5–7, 0–0, 94–96, and −2 to −2. | |||||
[9] | Australian climate (Brisbane), 5-star rating building with 50-year lifetime; excludes interior decorations and household appliances; assumes a COP of 3.5 with 20% ducting loss for cooling, 70% efficiency for heating; disposal phase includes dismantling of the original construction materials and their transport to recycling and landfill. | GWP | 31–39 | 53–68 | 4–6 | −1 to −4 |
EP | 34–44 | 51–61 | 6–8 | −1 to −4 | ||
R. Dep. | 30–46 | 50–66 | 4–6 | −1 to −3 | ||
[48] | Spain and Columbian climate, two houses, 50-year lifetime; includes HVAC, illumination, domestic hot water, electrical equipment, and cooking; star rating and appliance energy efficiency not specified; disposal phase includes transportation and landfilling. Note: results are approximated from graphs. | GWP | 9–28 | 62–88 | 2–7.5 | 1–2.5 |
AP | 1.5–7 | 90–97.5 | 0–2 | 1–1 | ||
ODP | 8.5–27.5 | 52.5–87 | 2–11 | 2.5–9 | ||
[49] | Hungarian residential house, 50-year lifetime; includes heating and cooling, hot water, lighting; does not specify star rating; excludes interior decorations; uses tabulated values for gross operation energy; disposal phase includes recycling (50 and their transportation. | GHG | 14–21 | 67–72 | 7–11 | 3–5 |
CED | 14–20 | 68–77 | 6–13 | 1–2 | ||
AP | 26–33 | 48–54 | 14–23 | 2–3 | ||
ODP | 85–88 | |||||
EP | 35–42 | 31–38 | 17–28 | −6 to 8 | ||
Eco. Q | 15–27 | |||||
H Health | 37–43 | 10–20 | ||||
R. Dep. | 76–81 | |||||
T. point | 17–20 | 62–69 | 9–16 | 3–6 | ||
[50] | European climate with three different zones; multifamily building; does not specify star rating; 50-year lifetime; use phase includes the operation (heating and cooling) and maintenance phases; disposal phase includes waste treatment and disposal. | GWP | 8.2–34.7 | 65.3–91.8 | 0.7–5.5 | |
AP | 8.3–35.9 | 64.6–91.7 | −1.3–1.1 | |||
EP | 13.8–47.7 | 52.3–86.2 | −0.6 to–1.9 | |||
Oz. dep. | 5.1–20.6 | 79.4–94.9 | −2.3 to −0.3 |
Study | Country, Study Focus, Assumption, and Limitations | Major Findings |
---|---|---|
[2] | Australian study; applied a life cycle costing modeling approach within an LCC framework of the whole building; 3.6- to 3.9-star design building; discount rate of 6%; 50-year lifetime; construction, operation, maintenance, and disposal costs are reported. | The average construction, operation, maintenance, and disposal costs are 62.8, 8.8, 25.7, and 2.7%, respectively. |
[4] | Australian study; applied a life cycle costing modeling approach within an LCC framework of the whole building; 3.6- to 4.4-star design building; discount rate 6%; 50-year lifetime; construction, operation, maintenance, and disposal costs are reported. | Construction, operation, maintenance, and disposal cost ranges are 62–65, 8–10, 24–26, and 3–3%, respectively. |
[23] | Australian study; applied a thermal performance modeling approach within an LCC framework; discount rate of 3.5% over 0–30 years; 3% over 30–70 years; only operating costs are reported; costs from other life cycle stages are not specified. | The energy-efficient building is the most cost-effective design. |
[24] | Australian study; estimated retrofit cost to achieve a 6 star from existing lower rating houses; discount rate not specified; costs in each life cycle phase are not specified; house and land package are specified. | The average cost per star rating was $3415 ± 46%; an increase in construction cost of 1–2% results in a 6-star rating from the previous 4.9-star. |
[33] | Australian study; examined the cost-effectiveness of thermal performance improvement measures; the discount rate is not specified; only construction costs are included; whole life cycle costs are not specified. | The construction cost is approximately $150,000 for a 4-star house; the average cost per star rating improvement is around $2600 for 5–6-star, and $9000 for 6–7-star, respectively. |
[52] | Australian study; applied lifetime economic and environmental costs and benefits analysis by varying energy efficiency performance; discount rate 3.5% over 0–30 years; 3% over 30–70 years; operation costs are reported only; costs from other life cycle stages are not specified. | Zero-emission housing would be an achievable goal. |
[53] | European study; estimated LCC of dwelling, including construction, operation, and maintenance; discount rate 4% over 50 years; disposal costs are not estimated separately. | Construction, operation, and maintenance costs are 65, 25, and 10%, respectively. |
[54] | European study; estimated LCC of multifamily dwellings including periodic maintenance; discount rate 2.5% over 60 years; construction costs are not included. | Construction, operation, and maintenance costs are 50–60%, 23–34% and 13–20%, respectively. |
[55] | European study; estimated LCC of residential dwellings; discount rate 4% over 50 years; disposal cost is not specified. | Construction, operation, and maintenance costs are about 56, 22, and 2%, respectively. |
[16] | North American study; estimated LCC value of buildings, including construction, operation, and disposal costs; discount rate 2, 4, 6, 8% over 35 years; LCC is sensitive to discount rate; maintenance cost is not included. | Construction, operation, and disposal cost are 88, 11, and 2%, respectively. |
[56] | North American study; estimated LCC of residential buildings, including mortgage (land and construction), operational and maintenance or improvement costs; discount rate 4% over 50 years; disposal costs are not included. | Mortgage, operation, and maintenance costs contributed 68–79, 3–9, and 20–22%, respectively. |
Assemblies of Building Elements | Not to Scale Sketches | Description of (Base House) |
---|---|---|
External walls Fiber cement (FC) Sheet Building paper (reflective foil) Insulation and air gap Timber plates, studs, noggins Plasterboard | External walls (101 m2) with FC sheet; face brick at the front wall (only 11 m2) with uncolored mortar; timber frame; internal walls (52 m2): 10 mm smooth finish plasterboard on studs, no insulation, and acrylic paint finish except for wet area walls. | |
Floors Carpeted top/timber floorboard Carpet underlay Plywood floor deck (12 mm) Reflective insulation Timber floor joists Concrete slab on ground | Carpet in bedrooms; timber floorboard on concrete slab in living and family room; tiles in kitchen and wet areas; plywood in upper floor decking; joist spacing and fixing under the tiled floor as manufacturer specifications; 101 m2 total house floor area with 21 m2 garage floor area; reinforced concrete strip footing and 100 mm concrete slab on the ground; 20 MPa grade reinforced concrete. | |
Roof and ceiling Concrete roof tile Air gap (40 mm) Sarking (reflective insulation) Timber rafters, battens Ceiling joists Ceiling insulation Plasterboard | Gable roof with 25° pitch; color-coated concrete roof tiles; total roof area: 125 m2; 10 mm smooth finish plasterboard ceiling with R2.5 glass wool batt insulation over the plasterboard. |
Floor-Type | Ground Floor (Dining and Living) | Ground Floor (Wet Areas and Kitchen) | Upper Floor (Bedrooms and Corridors) | Upper Floor (Wet Areas) |
---|---|---|---|---|
F1 (BH—carpeted floor with less insulation) | Carpeted top Underlay (10 mm) Plywood deck (12 mm) Vapor barrier Concrete slab on ground | Ceramic tiles (8 mm) Plywood deck (12 mm) Vapor barrier Concrete slab on ground | Carpeted top Underlay (10 mm) Plywood deck (12 mm) Reflective insulation Timber floor bearers, joists Plasterboard | Ceramic tiles (8 mm) Vapor barrier Plywood deck (12 mm) Reflective insulation Timber floor bearers, joists Plasterboard |
F2 (Timber floor) | T&G hardwood (19 mm) Underlay (10 mm) Plywood deck (12 mm) Glass fiber batt: R1.0 Vapor barrier Concrete slab on ground | Ceramic tiles (8 mm) Plywood deck (12 mm) Vapor barrier Concrete slab on ground | T&G timber board pine Underlay (10 mm) Plywood deck (12 mm) Reflective insulation Glass fiber batt: R1.5 Timber floor bearers, joists Plasterboard | Ceramic tiles (8 mm) Vapor barrier Plywood deck (12mm) Reflective insulation Timber floor bearers, joists Plasterboard |
F3 (Mixed floor) | Ceramic tiles (8 mm) Plywood deck (12 mm) Glass fiber batt: R1.0 Vapor barrier Concrete slab on ground | Ceramic tiles (8 mm) Plywood deck (12 mm) Vapor barrier Concrete slab on ground | T&G timber board pine Underlay (10 mm) Plywood deck (12mm) Reflective insulation Glass fiber batt: R1.5 Timber floor bearers, joists Plasterboard | Ceramic tiles (8 mm) Vapor barrier Plywood deck (12 mm) Reflective insulation Timber floor bearers, joists Plasterboard |
Wall Type | Description of Assemblage |
---|---|
W1 (BH—FC sheet with less insulation) | Fiber cement (FC) sheet Building paper (reflective foil) Air gap (40 mm) Glass fiber batt R1.0 Timber frame, studs, noggins Plasterboard |
W2 (Weatherboard wall) | Weatherboard (12 mm) Building paper (vapor barrier) Air gap (40 mm) Glass fiber batt: R1.5 Timber frame, studs, noggins Glass fiber batt: R1.5 Particleboard: 33 mm Plasterboard |
W3 (FC sheet wall) | Fiber cement (FC) sheet Building paper (vapor barrier) Air gap (40 mm) Glass fiber batt: R1.5 Timber frame, studs, noggins Glass fiber batt: R1.5 Particleboard: 33 mm Plasterboard |
Roofing Type | Description of Assemblage | |
---|---|---|
Roof | Ceiling | |
R1 (BH—Gable tile roofing with less insulation) | Concrete roof tile (20 mm) Air gap (40 mm) Sarking (RFL) Softwood rafters, battens | Glass wool batt: R2.5 Softwood ceiling joists Plasterboard |
R2 (Gable tile roofing) | Concrete roof tile (20 mm) Air gap (40 mm) Sarking (RFL) Softwood rafters, battens Glass fiber batt: R2.5 | Polystyrene extruded: R3.0 Softwood ceiling joists Glass fiber batt: R1.0 Plasterboard |
R3 (Skillion flat roofing) | Steel metal roof (2 mm) Air gap (40 mm) Sarking (RFL) Glass fiber batt: R1.5 Softwood rafters, battens Polystyrene extruded: R3.0 | Rock wool batt: R3.0 Softwood ceiling joists Glass fiber batt: R1.5 Plasterboard |
House Name | Floor | Wall | Roofing | Description of Houses |
---|---|---|---|---|
H3.6 | F1 | W1 | R1 | Base House (BH) formed with F1, W1, and R1 combination |
H3.9a | F1 | W2 | R1 | BH modified with W2 weatherboard wall |
H3.9b | F1 | W1 | R3 | BH modified with R3 skillion flat roofing |
H4.4 | F3 | W1 | R1 | BH modified with F3 mixed type floor |
H4.6 | F2 | W2 | R2 | BH modified with F2 timber floor, W2 weatherboard wall, and R2 gable tile roofing |
H4.8 | F3 | W3 | R3 | BH modified with F3 composite floor, W3 FC sheet wall, and R3 skillion flat roofing |
H4.9 | F3 | W2 | R3 | BH modified with F3 composite floor, W2 weatherboard wall, and R3 skillion flat roofing |
Category/LCEI Method | Impact & Unit | Life Cycle Phase | LCA Results of All Houses | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H3.6 | H3.9a | H3.9b | H4.4 | H4.6 | H4.8 | H4.9 | ||||
Mid-Point Category | Material flows /add masses | Raw material (ton) | C | 125.7 | 127.2 | 120.9 | 125.8 | 128.1 | 127 | 131.5 |
O | 28.4 | 27.0 | 24.4 | 20.2 | 20.7 | 20.8 | 22.0 | |||
M | 14.7 | 13.5 | 12.8 | 18.1 | 14.2 | 13.1 | 13.5 | |||
D | 0.1 | 0.038 | 0.040 | 0.131 | 0.036 | 0.067 | 0.006 | |||
T | 168.9 | 167.7 | 158.2 | 164.3 | 163.0 | 160.9 | 167.0 | |||
Air emission (ton) | C | 30.5 | 30.4 | 31.3 | 30.5 | 33.5 | 32.5 | 32.3 | ||
O | 47.5 | 43.8 | 40.9 | 34.6 | 33.9 | 33.8 | 35.9 | |||
M | 8.9 | 8.6 | 7.5 | 7.9 | 9.0 | 8.0 | 8.6 | |||
D | 8.4 | 10.0 | 8.6 | 7.9 | 9.6 | 9.3 | 10.6 | |||
T | 95.3 | 92.9 | 88.4 | 80.9 | 85.9 | 83.6 | 87.5 | |||
Water emission (kg) | C | 385.2 | 385.3 | 357.0 | 385.2 | 398.1 | 390.4 | 447.3 | ||
O | 15.7 | 14.9 | 13.4 | 11.2 | 11.4 | 11.5 | 12.1 | |||
M | 315.2 | 308.0 | 264.8 | 331.8 | 305.2 | 297.5 | 308.0 | |||
D | 5.3 | 5.4 | 5.1 | 5.4 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 5.4 | |||
T | 721.3 | 713.6 | 640.4 | 733.6 | 719.9 | 704.6 | 772.8 | |||
Eco-Indicator 99 (H) Australian Substances | Eco-toxicity (PDF×m2yr) | C | 15,132.3 | 14,731.9 | 1511.9 | 15,132.3 | 1602.4 | 1544.2 | 1526.7 | |
O | 6389.5 | 6065.4 | 548.7 | 4560.4 | 465.7 | 468.5 | 493.9 | |||
M | 2166.9 | 1579.7 | 144.4 | 2538.5 | 212.7 | 154.5 | 158.0 | |||
D | −71.0 | −84.7 | −8.3 | −63.9 | −8.5 | −7.8 | −9.0 | |||
T | 23,617.8 | 22,292.2 | 2196.7 | 22,167.3 | 2272.2 | 2159.4 | 2169.6 | |||
AP/EP (PDF×m2yr) | C | 589.9 | 596.5 | 641.2 | 589.9 | 683.2 | 671.7 | 634.4 | ||
O | 1205.8 | 1078.4 | 1044.3 | 897.9 | 838.7 | 831.4 | 891.9 | |||
M | 153.8 | 142.8 | 130.5 | 148.2 | 146.8 | 135.3 | 142.8 | |||
D | 40.8 | 42.0 | 40.6 | 33.8 | 37.5 | 33.4 | 42.6 | |||
T | 1990.4 | 1859.7 | 1856.6 | 1669.8 | 1706.3 | 1671.8 | 1711.7 | |||
Ozone layer depletion (DALY) × 10−5 | C | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.9 | 0.1 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.4 | ||
O | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | |||
M | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | |||
D | 0.0006 | 0.0006 | 0.0005 | 0.0006 | 0.0005 | 0.0005 | 0.0006 | |||
T | 0.1807 | 0.1707 | 1.9706 | 0.1907 | 1.9806 | 1.9806 | 2.4807 | |||
Climate change (DALY) × 10−5 | C | 433.4 | 384.4 | 467.6 | 433.4 | 478.6 | 500.0 | 435.0 | ||
O | 1017.0 | 938.9 | 876.9 | 740.8 | 725.2 | 700.0 | 770.0 | |||
M | 165.7 | 145.0 | 137.2 | 170.1 | 166.2 | 100.0 | 145.0 | |||
D | 88.3 | 101.0 | 97.6 | 92.6 | 105.4 | 100.0 | 106.0 | |||
T | 1704.5 | 1569.4 | 1579.3 | 1437.0 | 1475.3 | 1400.0 | 1456.0 | |||
Damage Category | Eco-Indicator 99 (H) Australian Substances | Human health (Pt) | C | 834.0 | 832.4 | 753.3 | 834.0 | 970.0 | 958.7 | 914.5 |
O | 832.8 | 765.1 | 718.6 | 608.7 | 591.6 | 590.4 | 628.4 | |||
M | 224.6 | 214.5 | 204.2 | 319.3 | 218.7 | 207.4 | 214.5 | |||
D | 26.1 | 28.4 | 27.1 | 26.7 | 28.5 | 27.9 | 29.3 | |||
T | 1917.5 | 1840.4 | 1703.1 | 1788.7 | 1808.7 | 1784.3 | 1786.6 | |||
Ecosystem quality (Pt) | C | 1086.5 | 1133.5 | 1079.4 | 1086.5 | 1055.4 | 1094.5 | 1191.7 | ||
O | 152.4 | 139.5 | 131.5 | 111.7 | 107.9 | 107.6 | 114.7 | |||
M | 193.9 | 233.2 | 176.2 | 99.2 | 140.7 | 179.8 | 233.2 | |||
D | 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 3.1 | 3.6 | |||
T | 1436.2 | 1509.8 | 1390.6 | 1300.5 | 1307.4 | 1385.1 | 1543.2 | |||
Resource (Pt) | C | 1163.4 | 1188.6 | 1243.5 | 1163.4 | 1373.7 | 1356.5 | 1330.9 | ||
O | 939.6 | 771.4 | 822.8 | 738.4 | 611.9 | 593.1 | 653.3 | |||
M | 439.6 | 422.9 | 375.0 | 476.9 | 427.0 | 409.8 | 422.9 | |||
D | 41.1 | 41.6 | 40.1 | 42.8 | 41.4 | 41.5 | 41.9 | |||
T | 2583.6 | 2424.6 | 2481.4 | 2421.4 | 2453.9 | 2400.9 | 2449.0 | |||
Single score (Pt) | 5937.4 | 5774.7 | 5575.1 | 5510.6 | 5570.0 | 5570.3 | 5778.8 |
Phases % | Raw Material | Air Emission | Water Emission | Eco-Toxicity | AP/EP | Ozone Depletion | Climate Change | Human Health | Ecosystem Quality | Resource |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C (%) | 74.4–78.9 | 32.0–39.0 | 52.5–57.9 | 64.1–71.5 | 29.6–40.2 | 52.4–96.7 | 24.5–35.7 | 43.5–53.7 | 75.1–83.5 | 48.0–56.5 |
O (%) | 12.3–16.8 | 39.5–49.8 | 1.5–2.2 | 20.5–27.2 | 49.2–60.6 | negligible | 49.2–59.8 | 32.7–43.4 | 7.4–10.6 | 24.7–36.4 |
M (%) | 8.1–8.7 | 8.5–10.5 | 39.9–45.2 | 6.6–11.5 | 7.0–8.9 | 3.2–47.2 | 7.1–11.8 | 11.6–17.9 | 7.6–15.4 | 15.1–19.7 |
D (%) | negligible | 8.8–12.1 | negligible | negligible | 2–2.5 | negligible | 5.2–7.3 | 1.4–1.6 | negligible | 1.6–1.8 |
Impact Category | Impact Feature | H3.6 | H3.9a | H3.9b | H4.4 | H4.6 | H4.8 | H4.9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Raw material (ton) | * Total change, % | - | −0.7 | −6.3 | −2.7 | −3.5 | −4.7 | −1.1 |
Per m2 contribution | 1.67 | 1.66 | 1.57 | 1.63 | 1.61 | 1.59 | 1.65 | |
† Per star change | - | −4.0 | −35.7 | −5.7 | −5.9 | −6.7 | −1.5 | |
Air emission (ton) | Total change, % | - | −2.5 | −7.2 | −15.1 | −9.9 | −12.3 | −8.2 |
Per m2 contribution | 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.88 | 0.80 | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.87 | |
Per star change | - | −8.0 | −23.0 | −18.0 | −9.4 | −9.8 | −6.0 | |
Water emission (ton) | Total change, % | - | −1.1 | −11.2 | 1.7 | −0.2 | −2.3 | 7.1 |
Per m2 contribution | 7.1 | 7.1 | 6.3 | 7.3 | 7.1 | 7.0 | 7.7 | |
Per star change | - | −25.7 | −269.7 | 15.4 | −1.4 | −13.9 | 39.6 | |
Eco-toxicity (PDF×m2yr) | Total change, % | - | −5.6 | −90.7 | −6.1 | −90.4 | −90.9 | −90.8 |
Per m2 contribution | 233.8 | 220.7 | 21.7 | 219.5 | 22.5 | 21.4 | 21.5 | |
Per star change | - | −4418.7 | −71,403.7 | −1813.1 | −21,345.6 | −17,882.0 | −16,498.6 | |
AP/EP (PDF×m2yr) | Total change, % | - | −6.6 | −6.7 | −16.1 | −14.3 | −16.0 | −14.0 |
Per m2 contribution | 19.7 | 18.4 | 18.4 | 16.5 | 16.9 | 16.6 | 16.9 | |
Per star change | - | −435.7 | −446.0 | −400.8 | −284.1 | −265.5 | −214.4 | |
Ozone depletion (DALY) | Total change, % | - | −5.5 | 990.5 | 5.5 | 996.1 | 996.1 | 1272.8 |
Per m2 contribution | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.020 | 0.002 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | |
Per star change | - | −0.03 | 6.0 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.8 | |
Climate change (DALY) | Total change, % | - | −7.9 | −7.3 | −15.7 | −13.4 | −17.9 | −14.6 |
Per m2 contribution | 16.9 | 15.5 | 15.6 | 14.2 | 14.6 | 13.9 | 14.4 | |
Per star change | - | −450.3 | −417.3 | −334.4 | −229.2 | −253.8 | −191.2 | |
Human health (Pt) | Total change, % | - | −4.0 | −11.2 | −6.7 | −5.7 | −6.9 | −6.8 |
Per m2 contribution | 19.0 | 18.2 | 16.9 | 17.7 | 17.9 | 17.7 | 17.7 | |
Per star change | - | −257.0 | −714.7 | −161.0 | −108.8 | −111.0 | −100.7 | |
Ecosystem quality (Pt) | Total change, % | - | 5.1 | −3.2 | −9.4 | −9.0 | −3.6 | 7.5 |
Per m2 contribution | 14.2 | 14.9 | 13.8 | 12.9 | 12.9 | 13.7 | 15.3 | |
Per star change | - | 245.3 | −152.0 | −169.6 | −128.8 | −42.6 | 82.3 | |
Resources (Pt) | Total change, % | - | −6.2 | −4.0 | −6.3 | −5.0 | −7.1 | −5.2 |
Per m2 contribution | 25.6 | 24.0 | 24.6 | 24.0 | 24.3 | 23.8 | 24.2 | |
Per star change | - | −530.0 | −340.7 | −202.8 | −129.7 | −152.3 | −103.5 | |
Single score (Pt) | Total change, % | - | −2.7 | −6.1 | −7.2 | −6.2 | −6.2 | −2.7 |
Per m2 contribution | 58.8 | 57.2 | 55.2 | 54.6 | 55.1 | 55.2 | 57.2 | |
Per star change | - | −542.3 | −1207.7 | −533.5 | −367.4 | −305.9 | −122.0 |
Life Cycle Phase | LCC Results of all Houses | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H3.6 | H3.9a | H3.9b | H4.4 | H4.6 | H4.8 | H4.9 | Range, % ** | |
Construction | 128,774 | 135,000 * (4.8%) | 128,387 (−0.3%) | 128,739 (0.0%) | 138,000 (7.2%) | 132,000 (2.5%) | 134,000 (4.1%) | 62–65 |
Operation | 20,317 | 18,400 (−9.4%) | 18,398 (−9.4%) | 15,681 (−22.8%) | 15,200 (−25.2%) | 14,300 (−29.6%) | 14,200 (−30.1%) | 7–10 |
Maintenance | 53,947 | 55,000 (2.0%) | 53,122 (−1.5%) | 50,525 (−6.3%) | 55,000 (2.0%) | 53,900 (−0.1%) | 54,500 (1.0%) | 25–26 |
Disposal | 5618 | 5800 (3.2%) | 6851 (21.9%) | 6656 (18.5%) | 5800 (3.2%) | 6660 (18.5%) | 6620 (17.8%) | 3–3 |
Total | 208,656 | 214,000 (2.6%) | 206,758 (−0.9%) | 201,601 (−3.4%) | 214,000 (2.6%) | 206,860 (−0.9%) | 209,320 (0.3%) | - |
† Difference per star rating | - | 17,813 (8.7%) | −6327 (−3.0%) | −8819 (−4.3%) | 5344 (2.6%) | −1497 (−0.8%) | 511 (0.2%) | - |
AUD/m2 | 2066 | 2119 | 2047 | 1996 | 2119 | 2048 | 2072 | - |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Islam, H.; Bhuiyan, M.; Tushar, Q.; Navaratnam, S.; Zhang, G. Effect of Star Rating Improvement of Residential Buildings on Life Cycle Environmental Impacts and Costs. Buildings 2022, 12, 1605. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101605
Islam H, Bhuiyan M, Tushar Q, Navaratnam S, Zhang G. Effect of Star Rating Improvement of Residential Buildings on Life Cycle Environmental Impacts and Costs. Buildings. 2022; 12(10):1605. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101605
Chicago/Turabian StyleIslam, Hamidul, Muhammed Bhuiyan, Quddus Tushar, Satheeskumar Navaratnam, and Guomin Zhang. 2022. "Effect of Star Rating Improvement of Residential Buildings on Life Cycle Environmental Impacts and Costs" Buildings 12, no. 10: 1605. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101605