BUILD SIMUL (2014) 7: 429438

DOI 10.1007/s12273-013-0159-y

Life cycle assessment of a single-family residential building in Canada:

A case study

1. Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Fudan University, No.220 Handan Road, Shanghai 200433, China
2. Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T1Z4, Canada

Abstract

Keywords

The present study quantified the significant environmental impacts of a two-story residential
building located in Vancouver, Canada, with a projected 60-year life span: (i) an inventory of all
the construction materials was analyzed, covering the building structure and exterior and interior
envelopes as well as the energy consumption; (ii) four types of functional units were defined;
(iii) the five top building materials were examined, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted to
investigate the impact associated with the choice of building materials. Two life cycle phases,
manufacturing and operation, were more significant in all of the impact categories, and two
building assemblies, the walls and the roof, bore most of the environmental loads. In terms of the
sensitivity analysis, the roofing asphalt had the largest impact, dominating three of the seven
selected impact categories. Despite different definitions of functional units, the function of the
dwelling buildings is always the same, to provide protection and housing for their habitants.
Additionally, to improve the performance of an existing building, several strategies were proposed
for the building renovation and maintenance, including alternative replacement materials regarding
the building components with high environmental burdens, good patterns of the occupants
consumption behaviors as well as considerations of the financial and environmental cost. Finally,
limitations and challenges are discussed to explore better design decisions in future studies.

life cycle assessment,

Introduction

E-mail: sbwang@fudan.edu.cn

residential building,
sensitivity analysis,
renovation,
Canada

Article History
Received: 27 March 2013
Revised: 18 September 2013
Accepted: 30 September 2013
Tsinghua University Press and
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
2013

methodology can be applied to the full building life cycle,

making it possible to improve sustainability indicators and
also minimize the environmental loads throughout a system
(Fava 2004). The methodology has been used in the building
sector since 1990 and is becoming more and more important
for promoting sustainable buildings (Boonstra and Pettersen
2003; Ding 2008).
There have been various studies on complete LCAs
within the residential building industry (Ortiz et al. 2009b).
Blanchard and Peppe (1998) analyzed a 2450 ft2 residential
home in Michigan. The total life cycle energy was 15 455 GJ,
and the life cycle global warming potential (GWP) was 1013
metric tons of CO2 equivalents; in addition, different energyefficiency strategies and substitution of selected materials
have been modeled to reduce the GWP and life cycle cost.
Peuportier (2001) compared three single-family houses (a

Architecture and Human

Behavior

Sustainability has become a global issue, with increasing

concern and awareness about resource consumption, global
warming, ozone depletion and other environmental issues.
In every country, the construction and building sector has
been a major contributor to socio-economic development
as well as a huge user of natural resources and energy (Asif
et al. 2007). Especially in industrialized countries, the building
sector, including housing, accounts for 36% of the energy
related to CO2 emissions and 40% of the primary energy
consumption (International Panel on Climate Change 2011).
Consequently, conservation in the building sector must be
prioritized to reach a sustainable society. As the most
credible tool to measure the environmental impacts of
products over their life cycle, life cycle assessment (LCA)

Research Article

Weiqian Zhang1, Shen Tan2, Yizhong Lei2, Shoubing Wang1 ()

430

standard, a solar and a wooden-frame house) located in

France. The functional unit has been defined as a whole
building as well as a unit of living area (1 m2). Asif et al.
(2007) provided an LCA of a 3-bedroom semidetached
home in Scotland. Concrete, timber and ceramic tiles were
the three major energy expensive materials involved, and
concrete itself consumed 65% of the total embodied energy
of the dwelling. Adalberth et al. (2001) applied an LCA to
evaluate four multi-family buildings located in Sweden,
and Thiers and Peuportier (2012) evaluated the energy and
environmental performance of two residential buildings
with high energy performance using a life cycle approach.
While the previously referenced studies describe various
environmental loads and energy consumption for dwellings
in Europe and USA, there is a lack of studies from Canada.
In this study, a residential house in Vancouver, Canada
was selected as a case study to fulfill the following specific
objectives:
(1) Present a comprehensive and specific bill of materials
based on design documents, contractors records, faceto-face interviews and photographs provided by the
house owner.
(2) Compile an inventory covering the building structure,
exterior and interior envelopes and the energy
consumption.
(3) Assess the distribution of environmental loads in several
impact categories through life cycle stages.
(4) Conduct a sensitivity analysis of the five main construction
materials.
Significant features of this LCA, compared with previous
studies of dwelling houses are the followings:
(1) Definition of four types of functional units as references
for different stakeholders.
(2) Consideration of materials replacement for building
renovations as an improvement of building performance.

Fig. 1 System boundary for the case-study building

Zhang et al. / Building Simulation / Vol. 7, No. 4

(3) Increase of good patterns of occupants consumption

habits and application of an efficient HVAC system
as initiatives to improve the sustainability of residential
buildings.
2
2.1

Methodology
Life cycle assessment framework

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a scientific technique

that addresses the environmental aspects and potential
environmental impacts throughout a products life cycle from
raw material acquisition to final disposal (ISO 14044 2006).
LCA consists of four distinct analytical steps: defining the
goal and scope, creating the inventory, assessing the impact
and interpreting the results.
The goal and scope definition establishes the functional
unit, system boundaries, and the quality criteria for the
inventory data. In this study, the system boundary was
defined as the process beginning from resource extraction
and manufacturing of construction products, to site
preparation and the building construction process, then
moving to the operating energy and maintenance phase,
and ending with the building demolition process. Figure 1
shows the system boundary defined for this project.
Determining the functional unit is crucial when evaluating
the goal and scope of LCA for residential buildings. There
are several functional units to choose for LCA in building
research. In this study, the functional equivalent is defined
as the square meter size of residential areas with a 60-year
life span for four inhabitants. Considering the purpose of
the building and the functions that it serves, the functional
unit can be broken down as follows:
total impacts per generic floor area;
total impacts per function-specific floor area;

431

Zhang et al. / Building Simulation / Vol. 7, No. 4

total impacts per dollar of construction cost;

total impacts per occupant.
Further discussion of these functional units and their
application are contained in the impact assessment subsection under Section 3, results and discussion.
The life cycle inventory analysis (LCIA) addresses the
collection and synthesis of information on the bill of materials
and energy use in this study. Detailed information is presented
in the sub-section under Section 3, results and discussion.
In the life cycle impact assessment, seven impact categories including the unit used to express them (i.e., category
indicators), have been selected: fossil fuel consumption (MJ),
global warming potential (kg CO2 equivalents [eq]), acidification potential (H+ mol eq), human health and respiratory
effects potential (kg PM10 eq), eutrophication potential (kg
N eq), ozone depletion potential (kg CFC-11 eq) and smog
potential (kg NOx eq). These environmental impact indicators
were calculated using TRACI, software based on the life cycle
inventory of North America database (Version 4.2). Finally,
interpretation of the results addresses the identification of
significant results and the evaluation of the results.
This LCA was conducted in accordance with ISO 14044
standards. Two main software tools, OnScreen Takeoff
version 3.0 (OST) and Athena Impact Estimator version
4.2 (IE), were adopted for this study.

2.3 Assumptions and limitations

2.2

Description of the case-study building

The case building is a typical two-story dwelling house

located in Vancouver. Constructed in 1980, the outlook is
characterized a low-pitched roof with rain screen stones on
the ground-floor facades and stucco on the second floor
(Fig. 2). The case-study building has a small floor plate (gross
area of 236.15 m2, including the garage). The ground floor
houses an entrance with two living-room areas, two bedrooms,
two bathrooms, a kitchen, a home-work station and a garage.
The second floor houses two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a
kitchen, three living areas, and a balcony (terrace) across the
front of the house. Table 1 provides a list of the building
characteristics.

The following limitations should be considered when interpreting the results of this LCA study:
System Boundary: Any of the impacts created or avoided
through the reuse, recycling or waste treatment of the
construction or demolition wastes emitted were outside
the scope of this study.
Data Sources and Assumptions: First, the building information for the case-study was gained from Michel Labrie
Architect, including four construction drawings and several
photographs. To complete the life cycle inventory and
estimate the environmental impact, certain assumptions
and simplifications must be made. In cases where
manufacturer-specific information was not available,
typical generic data or data for equivalent products were
adopted, and some of these data were also adjusted during
the stage of impact estimation due to the limitation of the
software tool IE and agreed upon later by the building
owner. Furthermore, the effects on humans, such as odor,
noise and work environment, have not been taken into
consideration; the machinery and furniture inside the
house are excluded in this study.
3

Results and discussion

A comprehensive LCA was carried out for a two-story

residential building in Vancouver, Canada. The system
studied included the entire life cycle of the building,
including the manufacturing, construction, operating energy,
maintenance, and end-of-life phases. The environmental
impacts resulting from the above phases will be discussed
first, followed by a sensitivity analysis and potential buildingperformance improvements.
3.1 Bill of materials
A Bill of Materials report was produced by the IE. The five
largest amounts of materials used were ballast (aggregate
stone) (7482.46 kg), roofing asphalt (5022.53 kg), organic felt
(1941.96 m2), glass felt (1787.28 m2), and oriented strand
board (1271.80 m2). The ballast (aggregate stone) was the
most significant contributor of the five materials. Specifically,
the ballast (aggregate rock) was sourced mainly from the
floor (concrete footing) and the roof. Further information
regarding the origins of each material is shown in Table 2.
3.2 Environmental impacts assessment

Fig. 2 Front entrance of the Vancouver Special

The following impact categories were used to assess the life

cycle environmental impacts of the Vancouver Special: fossil
fuel consumption (FFC) (MJ), global warming potential

432

Zhang et al. / Building Simulation / Vol. 7, No. 4

Table 1 Building characteristics

Structure

Soft wood column throughout

Foundation

Concrete footing with #5 rebar and average% fly ash assumed

Floors

Ground floor and second floor, two stairs included: wood joist, oriented strand board (OSB) used as the surface layer;
concrete suspended slab for the garage

External walls

24 wood stud, fiberglass batt as the insulation material. Brick-modular units were used to finish a facade at ground level of
the external walls. Other surfaces of the external walls adopted stucco metal mesh as the exterior cladding of building.
Gypsum installed on both sides, with a layer of OSB and concrete blocks for the fireplace

Internal walls

24 wood stud; fiberglass batt as the insulation material; gypsum on both sides, with a layer of OSB

Windows

All of the windows are assumed to have aluminum frames with standard glazing

Roof

Wood joist; 4-ply with gravel roofing system; three roof envelopes: Envelope 1: asphalt-cellulose, Envelope 2: an insulation
layer of fiberglass, Envelope 3: vapor and air barrier, 3 mil polyethylene

HVAC/heating

Steam from a central power plant

Table 2 Bill of materials

Material

Unit

Foundation

Walls

Floor

Columns/
beams

Roof

Building
total
1941.96

#15 organic felt

m2

1048.3148

893.6413

3 mil polyethylene

m2

566.4526

138.5894

705.04

5/8" gypsum fiber gypsum board

m2

624.1068

624.11

5/8" regular gypsum board

m2

550.663

550.66

Aluminum

2.5467

2.55

Ballast (aggregate stone)

kg

7482.4599

7482.46

Batt, fiberglass

m2 (25 mm)

651.1168

212.4047

863.52
216.19

Blown cellulose

m (25 mm)

216.1932

Cold-rolled sheet

0.0076

0.01

Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av)

m3

13.1801

4.0239

17.50

Concrete blocks

block

215.1757

215.18

EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil)

kg

136.211

136.21

Galvanized sheet

0.215

0.0462

0.1799

0.44

GluLam sections

m3

0.3186

0.32

Hollow structural steel

0.0369

0.04

Joint compound

1.1724

1.17

Large-dimension softwood lumber, kiln-dried

m3

6.5834

3.7052

10.29

Metric modular (modular) brick

39.3124

39.31

Mortar

m3

5.1334

5.13

Nails

0.3047

0.0501

0.1036

0.46

Oriented strand board

m2 (9 mm)

791.3842

307.1357

173.278

1271.80
0.01

Paper tape

0.0135

Rebar, rod, light sections

0.4838

1.1267

0.2695

1.88

Roofing asphalt

kg

5022.5329

5022.53

Screws, nuts & bolts

0.1824

0.0489

0.23
8.56

Small-dimension softwood lumber, green

8.5612

Small-dimension softwood lumber, kiln-dried

m3

1.7107

0.7621

2.47

Softwood plywood

m2 (9 mm)

52.2879

52.29

Standard glazing

m2

92.009

92.01

Stucco over metal mesh

m2

23.1452

234.15

Type III glass felt

m2

1787.2826

1787.28

Water-based latex paint

342.8234

342.82

Wide flange sections

0.4996

0.5

433

Zhang et al. / Building Simulation / Vol. 7, No. 4

(GWP) (kg CO2 eq), acidification potential (AP) (moles of

H+ eq), human health criteria (HH criteria) (kg PM10 eq),
eutrophication potential (EP) (kg N eq), ozone depletion
potential (ODP) (kg CFC-11 eq), and smog potential (SP)
(kg O3 eq). In addition, the information on residential energy
consumption was provided by the house owner, including
the consumption of electricity (BC Hydro) and gas (Fortis
BA). The total consumption of electricity was 9451 kWh in
2011, and the gas consumption was 89.5 GJ in 2011. These
two data were taken into account IE as factors of energy
usage. It must be mentioned that Athena IE is unable to
calculate the operating energy consumption and operating
GWP over a buildings lifespan; it only calculates estimates
of the operating energy (i.e. electricity use and natural gas
use) as primary energy and primary GWP (Ooteghem and
Xu 2012).
The final distribution of the life cycle for the environmental impacts of the Vancouver Special is presented in
Fig. 3. The results show that the highest environmental
impacts during the dwellings life cycle took place during the
operating energy phase, approximately 30%90% (except for
the category ODP), while manufacturing was approximately
7%51%, and maintenance accounted for approximately
5%49% of the life cycle impact. The last life cycle phase,
end-of-life, clearly had a lesser impact, less than 1.0% impact
in all of the studied categories. Furthermore, the Vancouver
Special consumed approximately 7.36 106 MJ FFC during
the dwellings life cycle, of which the use phase (operating

energy) represented 87.96%, manufacturing represented

6.07%, and maintenance represented 5.17%. For GWP, the
total impact was 4.17 105 kg CO2 eq, of which the operating
energy phase accounted for 89.69%, manufacturing made
up 6.06% and maintenance contributed 3.37%. As expected,
due to carbon releases associated with fossil-based energy
generation, the life cycle GWP closely matches the life cycle
energy distribution.
A breakdown of the total environment impacts for each
of the building assemblies is presented in Fig. 4.The results
are divided into the relevant building components: walls,
roof, foundation, columns and beams and floors. The walls
have a total GWP of approximately 30 948 kg CO2 eq and a
total FFC of approximately 434 571 MJ, which are the highest
among all of the assemblies. These results are logical because
an assembly that uses more materials would therefore have
more environmental impacts than other assemblies. One
might understandably expect that the roof has large environmental impacts because roof coverings are often made of
asphalt-based materials, which are high in embodied energy
and should be replaced often. This observation leads to
a conclusion for single-family buildings that of all of the
building assemblies, the walls have the largest total environmental impacts of any other individual component in
single-family residential buildings. Generally speaking, if
the concern is to reduce the environmental impacts of a
dwelling, then the attention should be focused on reducing
the impacts of the walls and roof.

Fig. 3 Distribution of the environmental impacts of the dwelling life cycle studied

434

Zhang et al. / Building Simulation / Vol. 7, No. 4

Fig. 4 Distribution of the environmental impacts of different building components

3.3

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis is important at the building stages of

design and major renovation. Performing a sensitivity analysis
could help stakeholders decide which material has the
biggest influence on the environmental performance of a
building. Using the analysis results, designers could choose
to reduce the amount of these materials in the building or
find substitutes that have fewer environmental impacts.
The five top materials mentioned above#15 organic
felt, ballast (aggregate stone), oriented strand board, roofing
asphalt and type III glass feltwere chosen to conduct this
sensitivity analysis. First, the amount of each material used
in this study was added in turn at 10% of its original input,
while the other information remained the same. Then, the
IE model was estimated again, and the revised results were
compared with the original results. These steps were repeated
for each material. The results of the sensitivity analysis of
the top five materials are presented in Fig. 5. Due to the
specificity of the environmental impact category ODP, of
which the impact increase only ranged from 0.001% to
0.006%, therefore, we set two vertical axes in the figure.
Six environmental impact categories, FFC, GWP, AP, HH
criteria, EP and SP, were measured according to the left
axis (0% to 10%), while the environmental impact category
ODP was measured in accordance with the right axis

(0.000% to 0.010%).
According to the analysis results, roofing asphalt
dominated 3 out of the 7 impact categories: fossil fuel
consumption, global warming potential, and acidification
potential. For the impact of fossil fuel consumption, a 10%
increase of roofing asphalt increased the energy consumption
by an absolute percentage of 9.1%, which was the highest
increase of all of the impacts. In this model, the #15 organic
felt had the second largest impact in 4 impact categories.
As we can see, the model was sensitive to the materials for
most of the impacts, except ozone depletion potential.
3.4 Functional units and impacts
The building functions were significant concerns prior to
starting the project and were outlined in the Section 2,
methodology. Takeoffs were conducted to find the square
footage of each of the functional areas and to find the
percentage of the buildings total area. Each functions area
is shown in Table 3. The bedroom was the largest category,
with 39.53% of the total surface area. The second largest
category for the building was the living room, at 15.93% of
the building. Here, we discussed four definitions of functional
units as follows:
2
Per generic floor areas (total: 236.15 m ): The impact
per generic floor area is defined as the impact of each

435

Zhang et al. / Building Simulation / Vol. 7, No. 4

Fig. 5 Sensitivity analysis of the top five construction materials

constructed square meter, which is mostly used in LCA of

building research. In this study, the per generic floor-area
impact of each impact category is presented in Table 4.
Per function-specific floor area (based on seven types of
functional areas): The impact per function-specific floor
area is defined as the impact relative to the performance
of the specific functional floor areas, i.e., the areas of
the bedrooms, garage, kitchen, living room, study room,
washroom, and passageway.
Per dollar of construction cost (total cost: 305 040 dollars):
The impact per dollar of construction cost describes the
impacts on the total cost of a buildings construction.
Cost is usually regarded as a measurement of the function
and the performance of a building (Yaman and Ta
2007). In terms of the green building construction, the
participants, i.e., the owner, the designer and the contractor,
are concerned with both the economic consideration
and environmental impacts. The impact per dollar of
construction cost correlates these two elements together.
As a result, using the impact per dollar of construction
cost estimates the environmental impacts of similar types
of buildings once the cost is known.
Per occupant (based on four occupants): The impact per
occupant unit is used to determine the impact of each
occupant in the house. Especially important seems to be
the consumption of electricity and natural gas during

the operating energy phase, which is usually affected

by the occupants. Thus, the study needs to examine how
the occupants affect the environmental performance of
a dwelling.
As shown in Table 4, first three impact categories, fossil
fuel consumption, global warming potential and acidification
potential, account for the major environmental impacts
in all of the functional units mentioned above. Despite the
four different functional units, the function of the dwelling
house is always the same, to provide protection and housing
for its habitants. The work using the functional units evaluates
and analyzes the environmental impacts per unit during
a buildings life cycle, which allowsbefore a dwelling is
Table 3 Building function
Percentage of the
total building (%)

Area (m2)

Area (ft2)

Bedroom

93.36

1005

39.53

Living room

37.62

405

15.93

Kitchen

23.88

257

10.11

Study room

21.55

232

9.13

Garage

21.55

232

9.13

Room type

Washroom

22.02

237

9.32

Passageway

16.16

174

6.85

Total

236.15

2542

100.00

436

Zhang et al. / Building Simulation / Vol. 7, No. 4

Table 4 Building functional units

Per functional area (measure/m2)
Bedroom

Garage

Living
room

Kitchen

Study
room

Washroom Passageway

Total
impacts

Per
Per dollar
generic
Per occupant (impact/
floor area (impact/person) dollar)

Fossil fuel
78835.55 341535.37 308211.36 195642.93 341535.37 334245.56
consumption (MJ)

455450.94

7360087.20 31167.00

1840021.80

24.13

Global warming
potential
(kg CO2 eq)

4463.30

19336.13

17449.48

11076.38

19336.13

18923.41

25785.49

416693.57

1764.53

104173.40

1.37

Acidification
potential
(moles of H + eq)

1880.26

8145.74

7350.95

4666.15

8145.74

7971.87

10862.66

175540.65

743.34

43885.20

0.58

HH criteria
(kg PM10 eq)

9.58

41.49

37.44

23.77

41.49

40.61

55.33

894.18

3.79

223.50

0.00

Eutrophication
potential
(kg N eq)

0.36

1.57

1.42

0.90

1.57

1.54

2.09

33.85

0.14

8.50

0.00

Ozone depletion
potential
(kg CFC-11 eq)

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Smog potential
(kg O3 eq)

51.19

221.75

200.12

127.03

221.75

217.02

295.72

4778.76

20.24

1194.69

0.02

builtan evaluation of the environmental impact that would

happen once the building is operating. Our Vancouver
Special provides a reference for future decision-making in
terms of a similar type of dwelling house in Vancouver,
Canada.
3.5 Building-performance improvements
3.5.1 Materials replacement to reduce environmental impacts
The proper design and choice of building materials could
improve the energy efficiency during the operation phase
and reduce the buildings energy consumption for heating
and cooling. This section compares the case-study building
(reference house) with four alternatives, addressing the
question of whether there is an environmental advantage in
using material A instead of material B. Due to the choices
of materials provided in the IE software, the alternatives are
limited.
Because the walls contributed the most to the environmental impacts in all of the assemblies, the first alternative
was to vary the insulation of the exterior walls using air
barriers instead of polyethylene (Table 5). The results showed
a very small decrease (less than 0.1%) in the overall environmental impact, due to decreased quantities of materials, but
there might be an increase of energy consumption during
the operation phase because an air barrier would decrease
the effectiveness of the insulation considerably.
In the second alternative, the window materials were
evaluated. The original window frame (aluminum) was

replaced by PVC, and glazing type was changed from standard

glass to a low-E tin glazing, as shown in Table 5. As the
windows with low-emissivity glass had a lower heat-transfer
coefficient than the conventional windows of the reference
house (Ortiz et al. 2009a), the results led to a reduction of
the FFC (12.11%) and GWP (15.25%), respectively.
As mentioned above, the roof also contributed a large
proportion to the environmental impact; therefore, in the
third alternative 3a, the 4-ply build-up asphalt roof was
replaced with a PVC membrane (PVC-cellulose). In the
alternative 3b, an EPDM membrane roof system was used
instead of the 4-ply asphalt system. As seen in Table 5, in
terms of FFC, there was a reduction of 64.29% and 76.55%
for the two alternatives, respectively; in terms of the GWP,
the alternative 3a reduced the GWP by 11.48%, but the
alternative 3b increased the GWP by approximately 4.10%.
3.5.2 Renovation consideration
Because the Vancouver Special is a 20-year old residential
building, it would be impossible to make changes in the
pre-construction or construction phases, but efforts could
be devoted to the maintenance and renovation phase. If
renovations to the existing structure were to be conducted
to improve the building performance, certain considerations
must be taken into account.
The monetary cost of installing the insulation or altering
materials should be compared with the monetary cost of the
energy demand for the remaining duration of the dwellings
service life. In other words, it is necessary to determine

437

Zhang et al. / Building Simulation / Vol. 7, No. 4

Table 5 The variation of FFC and GWP in the dwelling life cycle phases for the reference house and alternatives
Exterior walls

Roof

Reference
house

Alternative 1
(%)

Alternative 2
(%)

Reference
house

Alternative 3a
(%)

Alternative 3b
(%)

Manufacturing

1.00

0.11

9.01

1.00

68.65

76.85

Construction

1.00

0.01

0.07

1.00

+85.12

+78.31

Maintenance

1.00

0.00

19.42

1.00

63.25

78.14

Fossil fuel consumption

End-of-life

1.00

0.00

0.03

1.00

+3.49

+2.99

Total

1.00

0.06

12.11

1.00

64.29

76.55

Manufacturing

1.00

0.05

10.88

1.00

30.90

23.08

Construction

1.00

0.01

0.61

1.00

+84.36

+78.63

Maintenance

1.00

0.00

24.25

1.00

+1.40

+26.78

End-of-life

1.00

0.01

0.03

1.00

+3.82

+3.29

Total

1.00

0.03

15.25

1.00

11.48

+4.10

Global warming potential

whether it is financially reasonable to modify the building.

For instance, adding materials to the exterior walls might
prove to be a challenge because a separate wall layer will be
needed in the original wall structure, while the windowopening positions must be maintained. In addition, the
renovation schedule during the life span of a building
would affect the total environmental impact. More frequent
renovations could quickly increase the total embodied energy
and shift the life cycle environmental impacts distribution
(Scheuer et al. 2003). Finally, the waste resulting from
performing the renovations should be considered as an
environmental cost.
3.5.3 Energy-saving initiatives to improve sustainability
High energy consumption during the operation phase would
have an effect on environmental loads in the full life cycle
of the building. Strategies during the operation phase could
be applied in the following aspects:
(1) Windows: The easiest way to reduce energy loss would
be to reduce the number of windows on the exterior
walls. The R-values of windows are more than four times
smaller than those of walls and roofs (Morris 2009).
Moreover, fixed windows are usually more efficient
in maintaining the dwellings energy compared with
operable windows. Therefore, the most improvement
would occur when altering window openings. However,
this action is not a popular choice among the users of a
building, because sufficient lighting is important for the
occupants. Another action that could reduce the energy
loss would be to alter window frames, which would have
significant energy savings over time.
(2) Human behaviors: Changes in consumption patterns
during the operation phase would also improve the

buildings sustainability. For example, users should use

blinds correctly and not leave windows open, which
would greatly reduce the buildings energy consumption
(Ortiz et al. 2009a). An obvious advantage is that there
is no additional cost for these good behaviors of house
owners and occupants.
(3) HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) system
improvements: The operation phase covers the full
service life for HVAC. The operating electricity and
natural gas caused most of the environmental impacts
during the life cycle of the residential building. Thus,
installing high-efficiency appliances and fluorescent
lighting would be an easy way to reduce the energy
consumption of the residential dwelling.
4 Conclusions and policy implications
The concept of LCA applied in the construction industry has
been an effective management tool for evaluating environmental concerns. This research evaluated and analyzed
adverse environmental impacts during a full building life
cycle. The operating energy phase alone produced almost
half of the total environmental impacts. Another significant
life cycle phase was manufacturing, with a share of
approximately 7% to 51%. A breakdown of the building
components indicated that the walls and roof resulted
in significant environmental impacts in the given impact
categories. Moreover, according to the sensitivity analysis,
the roofing asphalt was the most sensitive construction
material employed in the studied building not only in
terms of quantity consumed but also in the associated
environmental impact categories.
The choice of the construction materials and the pattern

438

of the consumption habits can strongly impact the environment either in a positive or negative way when dealing with
an existing building. The work described here could be
extended to an appropriate combination of the following
methods. First, the implementation of low-impact materials
is a perspective that needs to be studied. Second, occupant
behavior is an essential aspect of the building performance,
and efforts should be made to raise the awareness of the
users. Third, the use of renewable energy and the choice of
an efficient HVAC system remain appropriate measures to
reduce the environmental impacts of buildings.
The findings of this study support previous arguments
that the operating energy phase is a major environmental
issue in the life cycle of a residential building. Especially
important seem to be to the effects of the consumption of
electricity and natural gas in the operating energy phase,
which requires efforts from the house occupants. Although
wider generalizations based on this case might not be
possible because the study relates to a single residential
building, the results could be interpreted together with the
results from previous studies. Considering the results of
high-environmental impact materials, further research could
explore the role of design decisions to optimize the use of
alternatives for these materials and renovation cycles of
residential buildings as a method to improve their environmental performance. Further studies of LCA on residential
buildings should focus on a more comprehensive picture
of environmental performance and a wider range of
environmental impacts.
Acknowledgements
This project was part of the University of British Columbia
SEEDS program. Helpful feedback was provided by
architect Michel Labrie, who supplied data and pictures for
the Vancouver Special dwelling. For valuable assistance
and software utilization, the authors would like to thank
Rob Sianchuk, sessional lecturer of the Department of Civil
Engineering, University of British Columbia.
References
Adalberth K, Almgren A, Holleris Petersen E (2001). Life cycle
assessment of four multi-family buildings. International Journal
Low Energy and Sustainable Buildings, 2: 1 21.

Zhang et al. / Building Simulation / Vol. 7, No. 4

Asif M, Muneer T, Kelley R (2007). Life cycle assessment: A case
study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Building and Environment,
42: 1391 1394.
Blanchard S, Reppe P (1998). Life cycle analysis of a residential home
in Michigan. Centre for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan,
Report No. CSS98-05. Available: http://www.umich.edu/~css.
Boonstra C, Pettersen TD (2003). Tools for environmental assessment of
existing building. UNEP Industry and Environment, 26(23): 80 83.
Ding GKC (2008). Sustainable constructionThe role of environmental
assessment tools. Journal of Environmental Management, 3:
451 464.
Fava JA (2004). Why take a life cycle approach? Paris: United Nations
Environment Programme Division of Technology, Industry and
Economics Production and Consumption Branch.
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001). Climate
Change 2001: Mitigation: Contribution of Working Group III to
the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
ISO (2006). ISO 14044: Environmental ManagementLife Cycle
AssessmentPrinciples and Framework. Geneva: International
Standardization Organization.
Morris M (2009). Life Cycle Analysis UBCs Forest Science Centre.
Available: https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/21220. Accessed 14
Mar. 2013.
Ooteghem KV, Xu L (2012). The life-cycle assessment of a singlestorey retail building in Canada. Building and Environment, 49:
212 226.
Ortiz O, Castells F, Sonnemann G (2009a). Sustainability in the
construction industry: A review of recent developments based on
LCA. Construction and Building Materials, 23: 28 39.
Ortiz O, Bonnet C, Bruno JC, Castells F (2009b). Sustainability based
on LCM of residential dwellings: A case study in Catalonia,
Spain. Building and Environment, 44: 584 594.
Peuportier B (2001). Life cycle assessment applied to the comparative
evaluation of single family houses in the French context. Energy
and Buildings, 33: 443 450.
Scheuer C, Keoleian GA, Reppe P (2003). Life cycle energy and
environmental performance of a new university building:
Modeling challenges and design implications. Energy and
Buildings, 35: 1049 1064.
Thiers S, Peuportier B (2012). Energy and environmental assessment
of two high energy performance residential buildings. Building
and Environment, 51: 276 284.
Yaman H, Ta E (2007). A building cost estimation model based on
functional elements. A|Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture,
4: 73 87.