| Title | Circularity indicator for residential buildings: Addressing the gap between embodied impacts and design aspects |
|---|---|
| ID_Doc | 26298 |
| Authors | Cottafava, D; Ritzen, M |
| Title | Circularity indicator for residential buildings: Addressing the gap between embodied impacts and design aspects |
| Year | 2021 |
| Published | |
| Abstract | In the European Union, the built environment is responsible for more than the 25% of all waste generated, highlighting the need to adopt circular practices. To indicate the level of circularity, common indicators mainly focus on: 1) the amount of virgin materials, 2) the amount of unrecoverable waste, and 3) the product lifetime. However, a holistic methodology covering the macro (material impact), meso (supply chain) and micro level (design) is still to be fully developed. In this research, two indicators - the Building Circularity Indicator (BCI) and the novel Predictive BCI (PBCI) - combine the Material Circularity Indicator with Embodied Energy (EE), Embodied CO2 (EC) analyses and Design for Disassembly (DfD) criteria. A full and simplified version are tested for different case studies in different climate zones in the EU. EE ranges between 1.49 GJ/m(2) and 7.60 GJ/m(2), while EC between 0.15 tCO(2)/m(2) and 0.73 tCO(2)/m(2). In the full version, the BCI and PBCI ranges respectively from 0.23 and 0.28 to 0.04 and 0.10 with regard to mass, EE and EC. The simplified version ranges between 0.10 and 0.62, revealing to be a more accurate indicator when data are available for only a few dozen components. To enable comparisons among different buildings, results show how different interpretations of the DfD criteria affect the BCI, highlighting the need to indicate strict boundary conditions, a minimum number of evaluated components, and precise criteria on how the DfD criteria relate to either a material, a subcomponent/component, or its relationship to its context. |
Similar Articles
| ID | Score | Article |
|---|---|---|
4646
|
Khadim, N; Agliata, R; Thaheem, MJ; Mollo, L Whole building circularity indicator: A circular economy assessment framework for promoting circularity and sustainability in buildings and construction(2023) | |
| 22329
|
Eberhardt, LCM; van Stijn, A; Stranddorf, LK; Birkved, M; Birgisdottir, H Environmental Design Guidelines for Circular Building Components: The Case of the Circular Building Structure(2021)Sustainability, 13.0, 10 | |
| 16571
|
De Wolf, C; Hoxha, E; Fivet, C Comparison of environmental assessment methods when reusing building components: A case study(2020) | |
| 17104
|
Callegher, CZ; Grazieschi, G; Wilczynski, E; Oberegger, UF; Pezzutto, S Assessment of Building Materials in the European Residential Building Stock: An Analysis at EU27 Level(2023)Sustainability, 15, 11 | |
| 21616
|
Temizel-Sekeryan, S; Rios, FC; Geremicca, F; Bilec, MM Circular Design and Embodied Carbon in Living Buildings: The Missing Potential(2023)Journal Of Architectural Engineering, 29.0, 3 | |
| 4247
|
Eberhardt, LCM; Ronholt, J; Birkved, M; Birgisdottir, H Circular Economy potential within the building stock - Mapping the embodied greenhouse gas emissions of four Danish examples(2021) | |
| 26138
|
Antonini, E; Boeri, A; Lauria, M; Giglio, F Reversibility and Durability as Potential Indicators for Circular Building Technologies(2020)Sustainability, 12, 18 | |
| 27896
|
Khadim, N; Agliata, R; Marino, A; Thaheem, MJ; Mollo, L Critical review of nano and micro-level building circularity indicators and frameworks(2022) | |
| 9281
|
Monteiro, H; Soares, N Integrated life cycle assessment of a southern European house addressing different design, construction solutions, operational patterns, and heating systems(2022) | |
| 2676
|
Joensuu, T; Leino, R; Heinonen, J; Saari, A Developing Buildings' Life Cycle Assessment in Circular Economy-Comparing methods for assessing carbon footprint of reusable components(2022) |