This analysis explores biodiversity loss impacts in building life cycle assessments, suggesting regulatory improvements for the construction sector.
This study examines the incorporation of biodiversity loss into the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of buildings, with a specific focus on the Danish construction sector. Motivated by the ecological crisis reflected in the Planetary Boundaries and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, it addresses regulatory gaps that prioritise climate indicators, such as Global Warming Potential (GWP), while largely ignoring biodiversity. The study analyses 73 Danish building cases for GWP and a custom method linking material quantities to ReCiPe 2016 endpoint data for biodiversity loss. The findings indicate key methodological issues include the quality of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), the regional relevance of assessment methods, and differences in European standards. While average GWP levels mostly meet upcoming Danish limits, variability, especially in Office and Other building categories, supports the need for differentiated regulations. Results show embodied impacts mainly drive GWP, while biodiversity loss is split between embodied and operational impacts. Detached and Terraced houses, which use more bio-based materials, have low embodied GWP but higher biodiversity loss, highlighting trade-offs in regenerative design. The shift in GWP impacts to end-of-life phases stresses the need to consider forest dynamics. Operational impacts rank similarly, despite differences in the data. The study concludes that progress toward regenerative design requires addressing climate and biodiversity together to avoid shifting environmental burdens.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Terkildsen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: