Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeWith a contribution of 39% to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, reducing the environmental impacts of buildings plays an undisputed role in achieving climate goals. Therefore, the development of projects with a low carbon footprint is of crucial importance. Although several active and passive solutions as well as design strategies have been developed, identifying critical levers to minimise GHG emissions and the cost of future building projects is still a problem faced every day by designers.MethodsMotivated by this knowledge gap in this study, we conducted a life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) of a residential building situated in Austria. To identify the critical levers for reducing impacts and cost, 37 scenarios with three different advanced energetic standards are created. The scenarios with the various standards are developed through the combination of different construction materials, insulation materials and technical building equipment. In the eco-efficiency assessment (LCA and LCCA), a reference study period of 50 years is assumed. The life cycle of the building scenarios was analysed according to the European standard EN-15978.ResultsResults show that improving the energetic standard does not yield an overall cost savings potential. The additional construction cost (23%) for energy efficiency measures, including thermal insulation and change of technical building equipment, is higher than the reduction potential in operating cost over 50 years. On the other hand, the improvement of energetic standards allows a reduction of the environmental impacts by 25%.ConclusionsTo ensure a cost-optimal environmental improvement of buildings, it is crucial to conduct an eco-efficiency assessment during the design process of energy-efficient buildings. This study shows how improving the energetic standard of buildings can reduce environmental impacts with slightly increased life cycle cost.

PurposeBuilding life cycle assessment (LCA) draws on a number of indicators, including primary energy (PE) demand and global warming potential (GWP). A method of constructing a composite index of weighted individual indicators facilitates their use in comparisons and optimization of buildings, but a standard for weighting has not been established. This study investigates the use of monetary valuation of building LCA results as a way to weigh, aggregate, and compare results.MethodsA set of six recent German office buildings served as a case study. For these, standard LCA and life cycle cost (LCC) calculations were conducted. Monetary valuation models from the literature were investigated as a basis for evaluation. From these, maximum and minimum valuation was chosen and applied to the LCA results for the embedded impacts of the case study buildings. The buildings’ environmental costs (EC) were thereafter calculated and contributions of single impacts are analyzed. The EC—based on external costs—are subsequently compared with the life cycle costs (LCC)—based on market prices—of the respective buildings.Results and discussionOf the five standard environmental indicators used in Germany, GWP contributes approximately 80 to 95% of the overall EC. Acidification potential (AP) is the second largest contributor with up to 18%. Eutrophication (EP), photochemical oxidization (POCP), and ozone depletion potential (ODP) contribute less than 2.0%, 1.05%, and 2.4E−6% respectively. An additional assessment of the contribution of resource depletion to EC shows an impact at least as large as the impact of GWP. The relation between the EC and LCC strongly depends on the EC model used: if EC are internalized, they add between 1 and 37% to the life cycle costs of the buildings. Varying construction materials for a case study building shows that materials with low GWP have the potential to lower environmental costs significantly without a trade-off in favor of other indicators.ConclusionsDespite their sensitivity to the monetary valuation model used, EC provide an indication that GWP and resource depletion—followed by AP—are the most relevant of the environmental indicators currently considered for the construction industry. Monetary valuation of environmental impacts is a valuable tool for comparisons of different buildings and design options and provides an effective and valuable way of communicating LCA results to stakeholders.

PurposeThe aim of this research is to carry out a literature review of the use of life cycle costing (LCC) in the urban agriculture (UA) sector by analysing its evolution over a 22-year period from its beginning in 1996 to July 2018.MethodsA total of 442 references were obtained from two principal databases, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). After a long refining process, 20 (4.5%) references containing the keywords LCC and UA were selected for analysis. Then, we classified and organized the selected references in 4 groups. Qualitative methods were used for analysis, and results on general characteristics of the 20 references and by each group were elaborated. Lastly, we discussed and concluded the most significant findings. Limitations and future research were also included.Results and discussionOur major findings were as follows: (i) urban horticulture was the most studied urban agriculture practice among studies that used LCC for UA; (ii) LCC plays a secondary role in its integration with LCA; (iii) only 4 of the10 papers in group 1 used additional financial tools; (iv) very few (3) papers appropriately applied the four main LCC stages; and on the other side, essential costs like infrastructure, labour, maintenance, and end-of-life were frequently not included.ConclusionsSince we found that life cycle assessment (LCA) was the predominant methodology, we suggest that future research apply both LCA and LCC analyses at the same level. The LCC analysis was quite incomplete in terms of the costs included in each LCC stage. We recommend that the costs at the initial or construction stage be considered a necessity in future studies in order to implement these new systems on a large scale. Due to the limited use of labour cost at the operation stage, we also suggest that labour be included as an essential part of the urban production process. Finally, for more complete LCC analysis for UA, we recommend (i) that all LCC stages be considered and (ii) that additional financial tools, such as net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR) and payback period (PBP), be used to complement the LCC analysis.

The growing pressure to optimise construction investment costs from the life-cycle perspective inevitably leads to efforts to seek new solutions that will facilitate informed decision-making in the early stages of the construction project. Awareness of the importance of considering future operation and demolition costs emphasises the shortcomings related to the possibility of making accurate predictions/estimations of such costs, which will become apparent in the future. To address this research gap, an innovative approach of life-cycle cost modelling on the level of individual structures of the building is presented. The model provides users with information on the costs of available technical solutions resulting from the requirements of the investor at a specific stage of the construction project. In this way, it helps investors optimise their building projects and to find the most economical solutions. Specifically, this model is assembled for the purpose of selecting a suitable partition wall and, therefore, it takes into consideration specific characteristics relating to this particular type of structure. The results indicate diversity in partition wall structural design variants at the early stage of the project. Since the ability to influence future costs decreases as the project progresses, the model allows capturing LCC perspective even if only a construction study is available without more detailed technical and economic information. The presented model aims to contribute to the higher performance of construction projects in the planning phase from the perspective of LCC and investors’/owners’ point of view.

With the ever-increasing population, volumes of wastewater treatment are a major concern in our country. The Activated Sludge Process (ASP), Biological Filtration and Oxygenated Reactor (BIOFOR), Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB), and Moving Bed Bio Reactor (MBBR) are all monetarily investigated in the present study using the Life Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA) tool. In this study, life cycle costing is done using the present value method, which involves discounting the costs for a 20-year economic life. The costs of treating wastewater per million litres per day (MLD) of wastewater treatment technology are obtained from the literature. Moreover, this study takes into account the capital, annual operation, energy, salvage, and replacement costs to compare the life cycle costs of ASP, UASB, BIOFOR, and MBBR to make the best guess of an economical technology. The LCCA demonstrates that the MBBR has the highest costs of treatment, resulting in the highest Life Cycle Cost (LCC). BIOFOR has the largest energy requirement making LCC the second-highest among the technologies. In India, ASP is one of the most widely used technologies, whose LCC is the third most advanced of the four technologies. Because of its lower energy and operating costs, UASB has the lowest LCC.

PurposeThe purpose of this document is to carry out a critical review of the existing literature by specifically addressing the following: (i) the integration of life cycle assessment and life cycle cost assessment from the perspective of research topics, category and scope of study, authors, institutions, countries, and journals working on or publishing related studies, and (ii) the main aids, challenges, opportunities, methodological difficulties, and current research efforts on the integrated approach of both tools.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify studies with an integrated use of life cycle assessment and life cycle cost in several areas. An analysis of the main aspects of the studies identified, such as bibliographic reference, year of publication, institution where the research was conducted, country, area of application, category of study, journal of publication, impact factor, and number of citations was conducted. After a search in the Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, 349 documents were identified. After a series of filters (excluding gray literature, reading titles and keywords, reading abstracts, and reading full-texts), which helped ruling out articles that did not contribute to investigating the integration of life cycle assessment and life cycle cost assessment, 90 documents were selected for a detailed analysis.Results and discussionThe leading role of the USA and European countries in this issue should be highlighted. The integration of life cycle assessment and life cycle cost seems to be most advanced in the areas of building design and civil construction. Different strategies for the integration of the methodologies are also found, being mathematical modelling and programming for optimization, and multi-criteria decision-making the most recurrent methods. Moreover, there seems to be more challenges than opportunities in said integration. The challenges include the monetization of environmental impacts, higher volatility of economic data compared to environmental data, and differences in environmental and economic background data. These challenges can be turned into opportunities in the development of more comprehensive methodological approaches.ConclusionChallenges (e.g., time-, resource- and knowledge-intensive, different scopes) and opportunities (e.g., common system boundaries, benefitting from LCA structure to conduct LCC) for the integration of life cycle assessment and life cycle cost were identified. This combined approach allows projects, products, and services to reduce environmental and economic impacts, which can be quantified and compared through improved assessment of potential trade-offs.

Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) plays an essential role in the economic sustainability assessment of buildings, and building information modeling (BIM) offers a potentially valuable approach to fulfilling its requirement. However, the state of LCCA based on BIM is unclear despite previously published works. Therefore, this paper aims to address this gap by reviewing 45 relevant peer-reviewed articles through a systematic literature search, selection, and assessment. The results show that three data exchange methods integrate BIM and LCCA through data input, calculation, and output. Precision management, optimization measures, and parameter analysis through BIM significantly improve the value of buildings. Also, a methodological framework is summarized that combines LCC with other indicators based on BIM to consider economic, environmental, and social impacts, which can be monetized to assess life cycle sustainability costs. These findings provide insights for scholars and practitioners.

All the modern gadgets and space conditioning in buildings consume lots of energy. Energy consumption can be optimized using Composite Insulation External Walls (CIEW) built from mortar plaster and structural and insulation layers. This study aimed to improve the overall performance of CIEW by optimizing the structural and insulation layer thickness. The objective was to minimize the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) and maximize the Life Cycle Savings (LCS) of CIEW. The nonlinear Least Squares Estimation (LSE) optimization technique for optimizing LCC and LCS of CIEW was used in the study. The study considered three insulation materials—Extruded Polystyrene (XPS), Rock Wool (RW), and Glass Wool (GW)—across three heat sources, including Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB), Grate-Fired Boiler (GFB), and Air-Source Heat Pump (ASHP). The Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) methodology suggested by Huang using a traditional optimization technique was used as a basis for mathematical formulations and result comparison. The payback period of CIEW with optimal structural and insulation layer thickness was computed. The findings revealed that applying the LSE method enabled greater economic efficiency than the LCCA method, with an up to 9.12% increase in LCS value and an up to 7.41% decrease in LCC value. The research also revealed significant correlations between insulation and structural layer thicknesses and economic parameters.

Water scarcity and climate change are posing new challenges to irrigation management. Climate change increases water demand and decreases crop yields. The aim of this paper is to propose a framework to select the most efficient irrigation strategy to mitigate the impacts of climate change and achieve food security. Value engineering (VE) methodology is utilized to assure the functionality of the strategy and add an element of creativity while creating the value alternatives. The life cycle cost (LCC) technique is utilized to provide the optimum irrigation strategy from an economic perspective. The findings showed three different value alternatives for different crops, soil types, and irrigation systems. This paper contributes to the current state of knowledge by a) utilizing the Value Engineering methodology in irrigation management studies; b) evaluating irrigation strategies to ensure efficient irrigation water management; and c) providing policymakers with a tool to incorporate the added value and functionality into their policies regarding irrigation water.

PurposeThe main objective of this paper is to develop a model that will combine economic and environmental assessment tools to support the composite material selection of aircraft structures in the early phases of design and application of the tool for an aircraft elevator.MethodsAn integrated life cycle cost (LCC) and life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology was used as part of the sustainable design approach for the laminate stacking sequence design. The model considered is the aircraft structure made of carbon fiber reinforce plastic prepreg and processed via hand layup-autoclave process which is the preferred method for the aircraft industry. The model was applied to a cargo aircraft elevator case study by comparing six different laminate configurations and two different carbon fiber prepreg materials across aircraft’s entire life cycle.Results and discussionThe results show, in line with other studies using different methodologies (e.g., life cycle engineering, or LCE), that the combination of LCA with LCC is a worthwhile approach for comparing the different laminate configurations in terms of cost and environmental impact to support composite laminate stacking design by providing the best trade-off between cost and environment. Elevator LCC reduces 19% by changing the material type and applying different ply orientations. Elevator LCA score reduces 53% by selecting the optimum instead of best technical solution that minimizes the displacement. Improving the structural performance does not always lead to an increase in the cost.