Methods to Account for Design for Disassembly: Status of the Building Sector
2. Circular Economy in the Building Sector
2.1. Limitations of the Implementation of Circular Economy Principles in the Building Sector
2.2. The Norwegian Building Sector
3. Accounting for Circularity in LCA Frameworks
3.1. Circularity in Current LCA Standards
- EN 15978:2011 , which provides standard instructions for assessing the environmental performance of the CEN TC 350 sustainability of the construction works’ standard family.
- EN 15804:2012 , which provides instructions for the Environmental Product Declaration content in the CEN TC 350 sustainability of the construction works’ standard family.
- NS 3720:2018 , specifying calculation rules for GHG accounting for buildings in Norway.
3.2. Allocation of Materials Use and Reuse
3.3. Testing of the Allocation Methods in Case Studies
4. LCA Limitations for Accounting for the Benefits of Circularity in Terms of DfD
4.1. Valuation of Future Avoided Emissions
4.2. Choice of Time Horizon
5. Biogenic Carbon
5.1. Wood as a Trend Material in the European Market
5.2. Uptake of Biogenic Carbon in Standards
6. Carbon in Concrete
6.1. Carbonation of CO2 in Concrete
7. Existing DfD Accounting Practices in the Norwegian Building Sector
8. Conclusions and Future Work
- The allocation/distribution of future avoided emissions in the first, second, or third future building, including financial allocation (linked to the possible increased costs for the facilitation of DfD today).
- Including the importance of the number of reuses (number of buildings) for building products.
- The allocation of increased emissions from the facilitation of DfD today (more steel, increased durability, etc.) on the first, second, or future building.
- Could increasing the lifespan in module A1–A3 for reusable building products be an alternative to using module D for DfD?
- Which emission factors should be set for reusable products? There are usually no EPDs for reusable products at present.
- The time weighting (valuation) of future avoided emissions, seen in relation to the Paris Agreement’s objective (reduction by 2050), as well as the uncertainty related to technology development (more climate-friendly materials, carbon capture in waste treatment, etc., for substituted building products) and likely reuse in the future.
- The treatment of biogenic carbon and carbonation in relation to DfD.
- The extent of GHG reductions by DfD vs. other GHG-reducing measures in GHG calculations (energy efficiency, use of more climate-friendly materials).
- Based on various analyses and the element of uncertainty, consider “innovation bonus” if there is too much uncertainty related to future GHG reductions in DfD.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
- European Commission. The European Green Deal; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Energy Use in Buildings; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Lausselet, C.; Urrego, J.P.F.; Resch, E.; Brattebø, H. Temporal analysis of the material flows and embodied greenhouse gas emissions of a neighborhood building stock. J. Ind. Ecol. 2020, 25, 419–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EASAC. Decarbonisation of Buildings: For Climate, Health and Jobs; German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina: Halle, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Wiebe, K.S.; Harsdorff, M.; Montt, G.; Simas, M.S.; Wood, R. Global Circular Economy Scenario in a Multiregional Input-Output Framework. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 6362–6373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Deloitte Study for a National Strategy for Circular Economy. 2020. Available online: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/70958265348442759bed5bcbb408ddcc/deloitte_study-on-circular-economy_short-summary.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2023).
- European Commission. A New Circular Economy Action Plan: For a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1583933814386&uri=COM:2020:98:FIN#footnote37 (accessed on 10 February 2023).
- European Commission. Circular Economy Principles for Building Design; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Ostapska, K.; Gradeci, K.; Ruther, P. Design for Disassembly (DfD) in construction industry: A literature mapping and analysis of the existing designs. In Proceedings of the Carbon-Neutral Cities—Energy Efficiency and Renewables in the Digital Era (Cisbat 2021), Lausanne, Switzerland, 8–10 September 2021; Volume 2042, p. 012176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rios, F.C.; Chong, W.K.; Grau, D. Design for Disassembly and Deconstruction—Challenges and Opportunities. Procedia Eng. 2015, 118, 1296–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- European Commission. REGULATION (EU) 2020/852 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 18 June 2020 on the Establishment of a Framework to Facilitate Sustainable Investment, and Amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 2020. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R0852&from=EN (accessed on 10 February 2023).
- ISO 20887:2020; ISO/TC 59/SC 17 Sustainability in Buildings and Civil Engineering Works—Design for Disassembly and Adaptability—Principles, Requirements and Guidance. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
- Norwegian Building Authority. Building Technical Regulation (TEK17). 2017. Available online: https://dibk.no/regelverk/byggteknisk-forskrift-tek17/17/17-1/ (accessed on 10 February 2023). (In Norwegian).
- Hellweg, S.; Milà i Canals, L. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 2014, 344, 1109–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X.; Zuo, J.; Wu, G.; Huang, C. A bibliometric review of green building research 2000–2016. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2019, 62, 74–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haupt, M.; Zschokke, M. How can LCA support the circular economy?—63rd discussion forum on life cycle assessment, Zurich, Switzerland, November 30, 2016. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 832–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skanska Norge AS. SirkBygg. 2023. Available online: https://www.skanska.no/hvem-vi-er/barekraft/miljo-og-gronne-losninger/innovasjon-og-fou/sirkbygg/ (accessed on 15 February 2023).
- Eurostat. Generation of Waste by Waste Category, Hazardousness and NACE Rev. 2 Activity. 2022. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_wasgen/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 5 February 2023).
- Krausmann, F.; Lauk, C.; Haas, W.; Wiedenhofer, D. From resource extraction to outflows of wastes and emissions: The socioeconomic metabolism of the global economy, 1900–2015. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 52, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ness, D.A.; Xing, K. Toward a Resource-Efficient Built Environment: A Literature Review and Conceptual Model. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, 572–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Stijn, A.; Malabi Eberhardt, L.C.; Wouterszoon Jansen, B.; Meijer, A. A Circular Economy Life Cycle Assessment (CE-LCA) model for building components. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 174, 105683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rambøll; on behalf of GBCF. Nordic Guide to Sustainable Materials; GBCF: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Adams, K.T.; Osmani, M.; Thorpe, T.; Thornback, J. Circular economy in construction: Current awareness, challenges and enablers. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Waste Resour. Manag. 2017, 170, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Nordic Council of Ministers. Pre-Study: Indicators on Circular Economy in the Nordic Countries; Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Heinrich, M.; Lang, W. Materials Passports—Best Practice; Technische Universität München in association with BAMB: Munich, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- 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. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 77, 103499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statistics Norway. Waste Accounts (2021). 2022. Available online: https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/avfall/statistikk/avfallsregnskapet (accessed on 10 February 2023).
- European Commission. DIRECTIVE 2008/98/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- De Wit, M.; Haigh, L.; Von Daniels, C.; Christiansen, A.F. The Circularity Gap Report: Norway; The Plaftorm for Accelerating the Circular Economy (PACE): Oslo, Norway, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Rosen, A. Urban Mining Index—Planning and assessment tool for circular construction. Bauphysik 2021, 43, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation; GRANTA; Life. Circularity Indicators: An approach to Measuring Circularity, Methodology. Available online: https://emf.thirdlight.com/link/3jtevhlkbukz-9of4s4/@/preview/1?o (accessed on 10 February 2023).
- Ghisellini, P.; Ripa, M.; Ulgiati, S. Exploring environmental and economic costs and benefits of a circular economy approach to the construction and demolition sector. A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 178, 618–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NS-EN 15978:2011; Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings—Calculation Method. NSAI Standard: Dublin, Ireland, 2012.
- CEN EN 15804:2012+A1:2013; Sustainability of Construction Works—Environmental Product Declarations—Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
- NS 3720:2018; Method for Greenhouse Gas Calculations for Buildings. Standard Norge: Oslo, Norway, 2018.
- Wiik, M.K.; Fufa, S.M.; Fjellheim, K.; Lien, S.K.; Krogstie, J.; Ahlers, D.; Wyckmans, A.; Driscoll, P.; Brattebø, H.; Gustavsen, A. Zero Emission Neighbourhood in Smart Cities Definition, Key Performance Indicators and Assessment Criteria: Version 2.0. Bilingual Version—ZEN Report 32; NTNU/SINTEF: Trondheim, Norway, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Allacker, K.; Mathieux, F.; Manfredi, S.; Pelletier, N.; De Camillis, C.; Ardente, F.; Pant, R. Allocation solutions for secondary material production and end of life recovery: Proposals for product policy initiatives. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 88, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Commission Recommendation on the Use of the Environmental Footprint Methods to Measure and Communicate the Life Cycle Environmental Performance of Products and Organisations. 2021. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-12/Commission%20Recommendation%20on%20the%20use%20of%20the%20Environmental%20Footprint%20methods_0.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2023).
- Ecoinvent. 2021. Available online: https://ecoinvent.org/ (accessed on 10 February 2023).
- NS-EN 15804:2012+A2:2019; Bærekraftige Byggverk—Miljødeklarasjoner—Grunnleggende Produktkategoriregler for Byggevarer. Standard Norge: Oslo, Norway, 2019.
- European Commission. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook—General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment—Detailed Guidance; European Commission: Ispra, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Malabi Eberhardt, L.C.; Stijn, A.V.; Rasmussen, F.N.; Birkved, M.; Birgisdottir, H. Towards circular life cycle assessment for the built environment: A comparison of allocation approaches. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 588, 032026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasmussen, F.N.; Birkved, M.; Birgisdóttir, H. Upcycling and Design for Disassembly—LCA of buildings employing circular design strategies. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 225, 012040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Wolf, C.; Hoxha, E.; Fivet, C. Comparison of environmental assessment methods when reusing building components: A case study. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 61, 102322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minunno, R.; O’Grady, T.; Morrison, G.M.; Gruner, R.L. Exploring environmental benefits of reuse and recycle practices: A circular economy case study of a modular building. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 160, 104855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vandervaeren, C.; Galle, W.; Stephan, A.; De Temmerman, N. More than the sum of its parts: Considering interdependencies in the life cycle material flow and environmental assessment of demountable buildings. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 177, 106001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anil Kumar, G.; Bahubalendruni, M.V.A.R.; Prasad, V.S.S.; Sankaranarayanasamy, K. A multi-layered disassembly sequence planning method to support decision making in de-manufacturing. Sadhana Acad. Proc. Eng. Sci. 2021, 46, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Decorte, Y.; Van Den Bossche, N.; Steeman, M. Guidelines for defining the reference study period and system boundaries in comparative LCA of building renovation and reconstruction. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2023, 28, 111–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandak, A.; Sandak, J.; Brzezicki, M.; Kutnar, A. Bio-Based Building Skin; Springer: Singapore, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Hoxha, E.; Passer, A.; Saade, M.R.M.; Trigaux, D.; Shuttleworth, A.; Pittau, F.; Allacker, K.; Habert, G. Biogenic carbon in buildings: A critical overview of LCA methods. Build. Cities 2020, 1, 504–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersen, C.E.; Rasmussen, F.N.; Habert, G.; Birgisdóttir, H. Embodied GHG Emissions of Wooden Buildings—Challenges of Biogenic Carbon Accounting in Current LCA Methods. Front. Built Environ. 2021, 7, 729096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hildebrandt, J.; Hagemann, N.; Thrän, D. The contribution of wood-based construction materials for leveraging a low carbon building sector in Europe. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 34, 405–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merli, F.; Belloni, E.; Buratti, C. Eco-sustainable wood waste panels for building applications: Influence of different species and assembling techniques on thermal, acoustic, and environmental performance. Buildings 2021, 11, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pittau, F.; Lumia, G.; Heeren, N.; Iannaccone, G.; Habert, G. Retrofit as a carbon sink: The carbon storage potentials of the EU housing stock. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hafner, A.; Ott, S.; Winter, S. Recycling and End-of-Life Scenarios for Timber Structures; RILEM Bookseries; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 9, p. 98. [Google Scholar]
- NS-EN 16485:2014; Round and Sawn Timber—Environmental Product Declarations—Product Category Rules for Wood and Wood-Based Products for Use in Construction. Standard Norge: Oslo, Norway, 2014.
- NS-EN 16449:2014; Wood and Wood-Based Products—Calculation of the Biogenic Carbon Content of Wood and Conversion to Carbon Dioxide. Standard Norge: Oslo, Norway, 2014.
- NS-EN 16757:2017; Sustainability of Construction Works—Environmental Product Declarations—Product Category Rules for Concrete and Concrete Elements. Standard Norge: Oslo, Norway, 2017.
- Future Built. FutureBuilt Criteria for Circular Buildings; Future Built: Oslo, Norway, 2019. Available online: https://www.futurebuilt.no/content/download/13987/94674 (accessed on 10 February 2023). (In Norwegian).
- Norwegian Building Council. BREEAM-NOR v6.0 for Nybygg—Teknisk Manual SD5076 NOR; Norwegian Building Council: Oslo, Norway, 2022. Available online: https://byggalliansen.no/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/BREEAM-NOR-v6.0_NOR.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2023).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Lausselet, C.; Dahlstrøm, O.A.; Thyholt, M.; Eghbali, A.; Schneider-Marin, P. Methods to Account for Design for Disassembly: Status of the Building Sector. Buildings 2023, 13, 1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13041012
Lausselet C, Dahlstrøm OA, Thyholt M, Eghbali A, Schneider-Marin P. Methods to Account for Design for Disassembly: Status of the Building Sector. Buildings. 2023; 13(4):1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13041012Chicago/Turabian Style
Lausselet, Carine, Oddbjørn Andvik Dahlstrøm, Marit Thyholt, Aida Eghbali, and Patricia Schneider-Marin. 2023. "Methods to Account for Design for Disassembly: Status of the Building Sector" Buildings 13, no. 4: 1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13041012