This research explores the lack of standardized Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tools capable of measuring the environmental benefits of reusing building components from demolition sites. By testings six recognized carbon-accounting methodologies (including the Cut-off, End-of-life, and Environmental Footprint methods) on a Swiss case study (Kopfabu Halle 118), the authors demonstrate that current quantification tools produce highly inconsistent results.
These discrepancies stem from how different methods allocate carbon “burdens” and “credits” across a component’s first, intermediate, and final lifecycles.
The study explicitly states that existing frameworks are too limited in scope to address the complexities of reuse. They fail to quantify critical circular characteristics such as dis/re- mountability, versatility, design complexity, and the impact of storage and transformation.
The findings conclude that until theses specific features are integrated into standardized equations, LCA tools will remain inadequate for accurately demonstrating the climate benefits of reuse in the built environment.
Learn more about this study here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102322
Reference
De Wolf, C., Hoxha, E., & Fivet, C. (2020). Comparison of environmental assessment methods when reusing building components: A case study. Sustainable Cities and Society, 61, 102322.