Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative evaluation shows significant variation in end-of-life embodied carbon calculations across building databases, highlighting the need for standardized data sources.
The growing awareness of the need to minimise greenhouse gas (GHG) and mitigate climate change has resulted in a greater focus on the embodied carbon (EC) of construction material. One way to ensure the environmental impact of building activities is minimised to a reasonable level is the calculation of their EC. Whilst there are a few studies investigating the role of embodied carbon factor (ECF) databases on the accuracy of EC calculation from cradle to gate, very little is known about the impact of different databases on the end-of-life (EoL) EC calculation. Using ECFs derived from the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) default values and the Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE) suggested percentages for different elements of a building’s lifecycle stages, this study presents the impact of different data sources on the calculation of EoL EC. The study revealed that a lack of EoL ECFs databases could result in a significant difference of about 61% and 141% in the calculation of EC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Blay-Armah et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: