Life Cycle Ecological Footprint Reduction for a Tropical Building

Husain, Dilawar; Prakash, Ravi; Ahmad, Akbar

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4181715

Advances in Civil Engineering

On this page

Abstract Introduction Results Conclusions Abbreviations Data Availability Disclosure Conflicts of Interest References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 4181715 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4181715

Life Cycle Ecological Footprint Reduction for a Tropical Building

Dilawar Husain,¹Ravi Prakash,²and Akbar Ahmad³

Academic Editor: Zhenmin Yuan

Received13 Apr 2022

Revised11 Jun 2022

Accepted23 Jun 2022

Published12 Aug 2022

Abstract

Rapid urbanization significantly impacts natural resource demands and waste management in the construction sector. In this study, a novel methodology has been developed that could assess the overall environmental impact of a building during its lifespan by considering resources such as building materials, energy use, emissions, water, manpower, and wastes. The proposed method can estimate the life cycle ecological footprint (EF_T) of a building. The result indicates that 957.07 global hectares (gha) of bioproductive land are required during the lifespan of the case building. The CO₂ absorption land is the most significant bioproductive land in the EF_T of the building. The low environmental impact of building materials may reduce the ecological footprint (EF) of buildings, and using renewable energy can also reduce the operational EF of a building. The proposed building materials and solar PV systems have the potential to reduce the building’s life cycle environmental impact by up to two-thirds. The EF assessment of all existing and proposed buildings may be examined in order to execute strategies for a sustainable construction sector.

1. Introduction

Rapid urbanization influences natural resource demand and energy use as well as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [1, 2]. The construction industry is accountable for 40% of the global materials demand [3], 32% of the global energy consumption, and 19% of the global energy-related GHG emissions [4]. The Indian construction industry is expected to grow annually at 5.6% during 2016–20, and it may grow annually up to 7.1% by 2025 [5]. However, one-quarter of the total consumed primary energy and one-third of the total generated electricity are consumed in Indian buildings [6, 7].

In the entire lifespan of a building, energy, construction materials, manpower, construction and demolition (C&D) waste, water, transportation, and GHG emission are considered to be the major factors that have an ecological impact [8–11]. Many studies on life cycle energy [12, 13], emissions [14], C&D waste [15], transportation [16], and water consumption [17] in buildings have been reported. The estimated material use in India is projected to be nearly 15 billion tonnes by 2030, and it will further increase up to 25 billion tonnes by 2050 [18], while total C&D waste generated in the country in 2015 was about 716 million tonnes [19]. Bardhan analyzed that the building material production and building construction phase required water up to 27 kilolitres/m² of the floor area [17]. Waste is generated in every phase of the building, while the maximum C&D waste is generated when the building is demolished [15]. The energy consumption and CO₂ emissions by the transportation of building materials and C&D waste are significantly low as compared to the total life cycle energy consumption and emissions of the building [16]. Ding examined the energy consumption pattern during the different life stages of case study buildings; the study suggested that the operational phase and the construction phase of the building are responsible for 62% and 38% of the total life cycle energy consumption, respectively [20]. Suresh et al. assessed that the total annual GHG emissions of TERI University, Delhi, is approximately 0.72 tCO_2e per capita of the campus [21]. Thus, the building sector has the potential to achieve local and global environmental objectives (i.e., United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals) [22].

1.1. Ecological Footprint (EF)

The EF indicator can measure the rate of resource consumption and waste generation, and it compares with the resource production and waste assimilation rate of the planet [23]. The indicator comprises all resources/activities as input and converts them into a single output (i.e., global hectare) unit. The unit of EF is defined as “One global hectare (gha) is equivalent to one hectare of bioproductive land with world average productivity” [24].

Only a few studies have been reported for the EF assessment of buildings [25–30]. Kumar et al. reported that the life cycle ecological footprint of the Indian houses is in the range of 242–401 gha [25]. Jiaying and Xianguo examined the eco-efficiency and eco-footprint of a building; however, various assumptions such as demolition energy factors and construction, and destruction time of building are considered to estimate the environmental impact of each phase of the building [26]. Lui et al. reported that the life cycle ecological footprint of the multi-layer residential building is 0.859 ghm² [27]. Martínez-Rocamora et al. examined the annual EF of the Hernando Colón Hall of Residence is about 79.4 gha, while the maximum contributor was carbon absorption land (96.6% of the total bioproductive land) [28]. Gottlieb et al. had estimated that the EF of a selected school building is about 314 gha per year; the school building annually consumed bioproductive land of 160 folds of the total constructed area of the building [29]. Husain and Prakash reported the annual ecological footprint of a tropical building as 73.8 gha (i.e., the consumed bioproductive land was nearly 101 folds of the total constructed area of the case building [30].

1.2. Research Gap

Various studies attempt to evaluate the environmental impact of buildings, considering energy [7], emissions [21], or a combination of such factors [31]. Some studies also used the ecological footprint indicator to estimate the environmental impact of the entire building’s lifespan [26, 30]. However, all the input resources (see Figure 1) have not been measured simultaneously to evaluate the life cycle ecological footprint of a building.

1.3. Research Goal

The objective of the research work is to develop a method that can estimate the environmental impact of a building during its whole lifespan. The proposed method evaluates the building’s eco-imprint on the Earth through the ecological footprint indicator. The research goal has been carried out according to the methodological flow diagram shown in Figure 2.

1.4. Advantages and Disadvantages

The research study presents a novel method for the life cycle ecological footprint assessment of a building. It integrates resource limitations (i.e., available biocapacity of the planet) and sustainability aspects over the entire lifespan of a building. The life cycle ecological footprint provides a more comprehensive assessment than the energy analysis and emission analysis [32, 33]. The study does not consider the future degradation of bioproductive land during the calculations [24]. The assumption in calculating the life cycle ecological footprint is the uniformity of bioproductivity of various types of lands, for example, forest land and cropland [34]. Thus, it provides only a general estimate of bioproductive land use.

This study emphasizes the environmental impact assessment of buildings located in tropical countries. The study is also significant for the policy makers because of very huge infrastructural enhancement, which will be required in the near future due to rapid urbanization. The study can be helpful to estimate the overall impact of the building sector in India. The natural resource stresses in India are high, and it has already exceeded the country’s existing biocapacity. The total biocapacity deficit of the country is about 0.7 gha/capita [34]. A comprehensive assessment of the natural resource demand in the building sector can be facilitated by this study.

2. Methodology

A methodology has been developed that could assess the overall environmental impact of a building by considering resources such as materials, energy, emissions, water, manpower, wastes, and so on. Simultaneously, some sustainable features have been examined that can reduce the ecological impact of buildings. In this case study, it computes the life cycle ecological footprint (EF_T) of a building, and its potential reduction is explained below:

2.1. Life Cycle Ecological Footprint (EF_T)

The EF_T of a building takes into account the natural resource consumption, direct land use, transportation, manpower, and construction and demolition waste. In order to evaluate EF_T, the direct and indirect utilities in the building are transformed into their corresponding bioproductive land categories. The EF_T The system boundary of a building’s lifespan is depicted in Figure 1. The principle of assessment of the EF_T is shown in Figure 2. The assessment of EF_T is calculated by the equation that is listed in Table 1. EF_e&m, EF_t, EF_m, EF_we, , and EF_land represent the ecological footprint of energy and materials use, transportation, labour/manpower, waste assimilation, water use, and direct land use during the building lifespan, respectively. The all-listed parameters cumulatively assess the EF_T of a building.

2.1.1. Energy and Materials Use (EF_e&m)

The EF_e&m has been determined by the addition of the total energy-related emission and natural material used during the life cycle of a building. The EF_e&m of a building is calculated by using the equation that is provided in Table 1.

2.1.2. Transportation (EF_t)

The EF_t of a building mainly depends on three factors: (1) building materials transportation, (2) waste transportation, and (3) manpower transportation. The assessment of the EF_t of building materials, labour/manpower, and C&D waste is completed by equations that are listed in Table 1. Some assumptions are considered to estimate the impact of transportation; it is based on the survey and data collection from the local construction industry.

The assumptions are as follows:(1)Heavy-duty vehicles (HDV) are used to transport building materials and C&D waste(2)Vehicle (i.e., HDV) capacity is about 3.5 tonnes, and the average distance covered is 10–15 km(3)Labourers use diesel-fuelled buses (capacity of 50 passengers)(4)Distance travelled by manpower is around 5–10 km

2.1.3. Labour/Manpower (EF_m)

The manpower requirement during different types of construction work is shown in Table 2. The Central Public Works Department, Government of India [41] report, is used to estimate the total number of labour-day requirements during the building lifespan. In this study, the metabolic calories required are used to determine any construction activities by manpower [28]. Construction labour burnt approximately 1,400 metabolic kcal (i.e., the rate of 175 kcal/hr [42]) during one work-day (8 hrs.). It is 0.6 times the metabolic calories (i.e., 2,400 kcal/day of an Indian person [43]) burnt during the daily work-hours by labour. The main food items consumed in Indian conditions are presented in Table 3. The EF_m is determined by the equation that is provided in Table 1.

2.1.4. Waste Assimilation (EF_we)

The C&D waste assimilation of a building is mainly depending on: (1) landfill disposal and (2) transportation. However, waste transportation is already included in Section 2.1.2. The EF_we is determined by the equation that is provided in Table 1.

2.1.5. Water Use ()

Water use in the building during the life cycle (except for water used by occupants) is very essential nowadays because of the high water stress in the country. Groundwater is commonly used for building construction in India. In this study, the electricity consumed for uplifting underground water is considered to estimate the impact of water use. The of the building is determined by the equation that is mentioned in Table 1.

2.1.6. Direct Land Use (EF_land)

This section emphasizes only the direct land occupied by a building. The EF_land of a building is determined by the equation that is provided in Table 1.

2.2. Measures for EF Reduction

Some possible measures are suggested in the section that may reduce the EF_T of the case building.

2.2.1. Sustainable Building Materials

Building construction materials are responsible for a significant amount of ecological impact on the planet [47, 48]. This section focuses on the assessment of environmental impact reduction of building by use of some selected sustainable materials. The details of some selected sustainable materials are given in Table 5.

2.2.2. Renewable Energy Use

Renewable energy systems-solar, wind, geothermal, small hydro, and so on are generally considered a clean source of energy; however, it consumes some amount of energy (i.e., associated with materials, transportation, installation, etc.) and resources. It is accountable for the small amount of GHG emissions as well as bioproductive land consumption [55, 56]. In this study, a grid-connected rooftop solar photovoltaic (RSPV) system has been discussed. Various studies have been reported on the LCA of the different types of solar PV systems [57–60]. They suggest that the environmental impact of the solar PV system depends on various factors, which are listed as follows:(i)Type of solar photovoltaic modules(ii)Climatic conditions(iii)Installation (grid-connected, stand-alone, ground- or rooftop-mounted, etc.)

The details of different types of modules and the balance of system of solar PV system are listed in Table 6.

3. Building Description

The case building is a government polytechnic building located in the city of Aurai, District Bhadohi, Uttar Pradesh, India. The construction (i.e., convention type) of the case study building was completed in the year 2011. The building’s wall consists of fired clay brick (FCB) and mortar, and the building’s roof is made of M20 grade concrete (Pozzolana Portland Cement (PPC)) with 2% reinforcement. The building’s images are shown in Figures 3(a) and 3(b). The city of Aurai comes in the tropical climatic zone of India. The electricity consumption and constructional details (as obtained from the building site) are depicted in Table 7.

4. Results

The EF_T and their reduction potential assessment have been done for the case building. The obtained results are explained below.

4.1. Life Cycle Ecological Footprint (EF_T)

The EF_T of the case building is calculated by summing all their components (EF_e&m, EF_t, EF_m, EF_we, , and EF_land). The EF_T of the case building is 957.07 gha, while the annual average EF_T of the case building is 15.95 gha/yr (assuming the building’s lifespan of 60 years). The EF_T per unit floor area of the building is 0.10 gha/m².

4.1.1. Energy and Materials (EF_e&m)

The total consumption of building materials and their EF have been obtained from Table 8. The building materials and resource usage during construction in India are taken from Table 2 in Annexure, which has been used in the study. Due to lack of data, maintenance (refurbishment) impact is assumed 6.4% [63] of the total building’s life cycle impact in this study. Details of machinery use such as concrete mixer, electric pump, and electric vibrator are mentioned in Table 9. The EF_e&m of the case building as calculated by using the equation is 911.68 gha and their components (i.e., operational energy, building materials, construction energy, and demolition energy) have been shown in Figure 4.

Operational energy of the building contributes 52% share of the total EF_e&m of the building, while embodied energy of materials contributes about 47.5%. However, the combined environmental impact of the other two components (i.e., EF of construction energy and demolition energy) of the EF_e&m is less than 1%. Figure 5 clearly shows that bricks contribute nearly half (52%) of the total material-related environmental impact (EF); while cement and steel account for 33.5% and 12.2% of the total material-related EF, respectively.

4.1.2. Transportation (EF_t)

By using equation, the estimated EF_t of the building is 20.44 gha. Details of transportation vehicle capacity, fuel consumption, and emission factor of fuel are listed in Table 9.

4.1.3. Labour/Manpower (EF_m)

Food intake by the construction labour has been considered to evaluate the EF_m of the case building. By using equation, the estimated EF_m of the case building is 20.85 gha. The environmental impact of labour/manpower for the case building is 2.2% of the EF_T of the building. Bioproductive land distribution in the EF_m of the building is shown in Figure 6.

4.1.4. Waste Assimilation (EF_we)

Waste generated during the different life phases is calculated according to Table 10 in Annexure. EF impact of waste generation may be reduced through recycling/reuse, but it is not evaluated in this study. By using equation, the estimated EF_we of the case building is 18.2 gha (i.e., nearly 2% of the EF_T).

4.1.5. Water Use ()

Water consumption is mostly involved in the construction phase of the building (27 kilolitres of water per m² floor area [17]). The construction phase is more dominating than the other phase of building in terms of water use because refurbishment (during operation phase) and demolition (end of life) use a comparatively low amount of water. Therefore, water consumed during the maintenance and demolition phases has been neglected in this study. The is about 11.38 gha for the building (i.e., 1.2% of the EF_T).

4.1.6. Direct Land Use (EF_land)

By using equation, the estimated EF_land of the case building is about 8 gha (i.e., 0.84% of the EF_T).

The bioproductive lands contribution is depicted in Table 11 and the percentage fraction is depicted in Figure 7. The significant land type involved in the EF_T is CO₂ absorption land (i.e., 95.25% of the total bioproductive land) because the case building consumed direct and indirect energy during the lifespan. In EF analysis, all the energy consumption and emissions are represented in CO₂ absorption land. The EF_T distribution of different life cycle phases of the building is shown in Table 12. It clearly represents that the environmental impact of the construction and operation phases are 49.78% and 47.90% of the total impact of the building, respectively. In general, the operation phase is more dominant compared to the rest of the life phases in terms of energy use [12]. However, in the case study building, the embodied impact is almost half of the buildings’ overall impact. It is because the building is not equipped with any HVAC systems. The electricity consumption is very low during building operation, mainly meant for lights and fans. Therefore, operational environmental impact is nearly equal to the embodied environmental impact of the building (see Table 12).

4.2. Reduction Potential in EF_T

Reduction potential in the EF_T of the case building is estimated in two ways: first, sustainable building materials, and second, renewable power (solar PV) system.

4.2.1. Sustainable Building Materials

The EF_T reduction potential of the case building by use of different sustainable materials and their combinations has been assessed in this section. For such estimation, the required material properties are taken from Table 5. The estimated value of the EF_T by using alternative materials (individually or in combination) in the building is shown in Figure 8. The EF_T of the building may reduce up to 22.2% (Table 13) if construction materials such as fired clay brick (FCB) and Portland Pozzolana cement (PPC) are replaced with sustainable materials (i.e., FAB, HCB, AAC, and LC³). Husain and Prakash reported the constructional EF of the FAB consist wall as nearly 50% lower than the conventional wall (i.e., consisting of FCB) [66]. The ecological footprint of FCB, FAB, HCB, AAC, PPC, and LC³ is calculated as 0.001 gha/brick, 0.00004 gha/brick, 0.0002 gha/block, 0.0006 gha/block, 0.00009 gha/kg, and 0.00006 gha/kg, respectively.

4.2.2. Renewable System

The database of RETScreen software is used to assess the capacity of five different types of PV module systems that can meet the annual electricity demand of the building (Table 14).

The life cycle ecological footprint of solar PV modules (tropical climatic zone) is shown in Figure 9. The thin film (i.e., a-Si, CdTe, and CIS) solar PV modules have comparatively lower EF values than mono-Si and multi-Si modules. However, the thin film-based PV module systems are not used for large-scale power production because of their low efficiency and high degradation rate. In India, multi-Si PV modules are generally used for power production. The average life cycle EF of mono-Si, multi-Si, a-Si, CdTe, and CIS-based solar PV systems were evaluated as 0.0694, 0.0605, 0.0297, 0.0250, and 0.0305 gha/m², respectively. In Table 14, the electricity generation from the different types of modules is 0.56–2.65 × 10⁻⁵ gha/kWh. In India, the emission factor of grid electricity is about 0.82 tCO₂/MWh [35], and the estimated EF of grid electricity is 2.72 × 10⁻⁴ gha/kWh while ignoring factors other than emissions. Hence, the EF reduction potential by the solar PV systems is in the range of 10 folds to 50 folds.

The potential reductions of the EF_T through the different solar PV systems are shown in Figure 10. The grid-connected rooftop solar PV systems can probably reduce the EF_T in the range of 507.6–519.7 gha (i.e., 45.76–47% of the existing building). The maximum reduction in the EF_T has been estimated for CdTe modules; it is because of the lowest EF of such modules.

4.3. Combined Effect of Building Materials and Renewable Systems

If both the reduction measures are incorporated simultaneously into the building, it has the potential to reduce the EF_T by up to 69% of the existing building. EF_T with all possible combinations of building materials and solar PV modules is depicted in Table 15. The lowest EF_T of the case building has been estimated for the combination of HCB + LC³+CdTe (i.e., 295 gha). Due to the material constraints, hazardous waste disposal, and high degradation rate of the thin film module; the multi-Si-based systems have the largest market share in the world (i.e., 51% of the total installed capacity) [67]. Therefore, the combination of HCB + LC³+multi-Si is best suited for the building in the Indian context.

Energy-efficient retrofitting in buildings has great potential to reduce GHG emissions [68, 69]. For tropical climatic buildings, green roof designs and reflective roofs (reflective coatings on roof surface) can be installed to reduce the ecological footprint of the building [47, 66]. Solar tubes for daylighting can significantly reduce the artificial lighting demand of a building and may also reduce the building’s ecological footprint. Hence, the ecological footprint can be reduced by using additional sustainable measures in buildings.

5. Conclusions

This study focuses on assessing the life cycle ecological footprint of the case building. The proposed methodology may help estimate the building impact as well as restrict to use of resources within the planetary limit. Two important measures have been investigated for the reduction in EF_T of the building, that is, the use of sustainable materials and renewable power (solar PV) system. These two measures provide a significant reduction (maximum 69%) in EF_T for the building examined. With the installation of rooftop solar PV alone, the EF_T reduces by 47%.

The EF_T of the case building is about 957 gha (for 60 years of building life). The annual average ecological footprint of the case building is 15.95 gha, and the EF_T per m² floor area of the building is 0.10 gha/m². The major contributor to the EF_T of the building is CO₂ land that is 95.25% of the total bioproductive land needed for the building.

Such a comparison shows that EF for the built environment varies with regard to architectural and constructional features, climatic conditions, level of thermal comfort, and so on. Hence, a local assessment of EF is important in order to execute strategies for EF reduction.

Abbreviations

AAC:	Autoclaved aerated concrete block
A_f:	CO₂ absorption factor of forests
A_oc:	Percentage of CO₂ absorption in oceans
C&D:	Construction and demolition
EF:	Ecological footprint
e_i:	Equivalence factor of bioproductive land
FAB:	Fly ash brick
FCB:	Fired clay brick
GHG:	Greenhouse gas
HCB:	Hollow concrete block
HDV:	Heavy-duty vehicle
LC³:	Limestone calcined clay cement
LCA:	Life cycle assessment
LCE:	Life cycle energy
PPC:	Pozzolana portland cement
PV:	Photovoltaic.

Data Availability

All the data used in this research work are cited in the manuscript.

Disclosure

This is an extended version of the following source: “https://novapublishers.com/shop/ecological-footprints-management-reduction-and environmental-impacts/.”

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

R. Mahapatra, S. S. Jeevan, and S. Das, “Environment Reader: For University,” 2017, http://www.downtoearth.org.in/reviews/environment-reader-for-universities-57295.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Wang, S. Cao, and C. W. Yu, “Development trend and challenges of sustainable urban design in the digital age,” Indoor and Built Environment, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 3–6, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Becqué, E. Mackres, J. Layke et al., Accelerating Building Efficiency: Eight Actions for Urban Leaders, World Resources Institute (US), Washington, DC, U.S.A, 2016.
O. Lucon and D. Ürge-Vorsatz, Buildings Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K and New York, NY, USA, 2014.
Invest India, “Natinal Investment Promotion and Facilitation Agency,” 2018, https://www.investindia.gov.in/sector/construction.
View at: Google Scholar
H. J. Wagner, J. Mathur, and N. K. Bansal, Energy Security Climate Change and Sustainable Development, Anamaya Publishers, New Delhi, 2007.
T. Ramesh, R. Prakash, and K. Shukla, “Life cycle energy analysis of a multifamily residential house: a case study in Indian context,” Open Journal of Energy Efficiency, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 34–41, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Wang, D. Xie, C. W. Yu, and H. Wang, “Evaluation of the effect of cover layer on radon exhalation from building materials,” Indoor and Built Environment, vol. 30, no. 9, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Khoshbakht, G. Baird, and E. O. Rasheed, “The influence of work group size and space sharing on the perceived productivity, overall comfort and health of occupants in commercial and academic buildings,” Indoor and Built Environment, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 692–710, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ahmad, G. Jeon, and C. W. Yu, “Challenges and emerging technologies for sustainable smart cities,” Indoor and Built Environment, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 581–584, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Shen and Z. Zhou, “Light transmitting performance and energy-saving of plastic optical fibre transparent concrete products,” Indoor and Built Environment, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 635–649, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Ramesh, R. Prakash, and K. K. Shukla, “Life cycle approach in evaluating energy performance of residential buildings in Indian context,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 54, pp. 259–265, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. L. Pinky and S. Palaniappan, “A case study on life cycle energy use of residential building in Southern India,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 80, pp. 247–259, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Varun, A. Sharma, V. Shree, and H. Nautiyal, “Life cycle environmental assessment of an educational building in Northern India: a case study,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 4, pp. 22–28, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Sustainable Building Design Manual, Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi, vol. 2, 2004.
B. Li, Low-Carbon Building Technology System and Methods of Calculating Carbon Emission, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, 2012.
S. Bardhan, “Assessment of water resource consumption in building construction in India,” WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, WIT Press, vol. 144, p. 2011, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Dittrich, “Global material flows database,” 2012, https://www.materialflows.net.
View at: Google Scholar
Material consumption patterns in India, “A Baseline Study of the Automotive and Construction Sectors,” 2016, http://www.international-climate-initiative.com/fileadmin/Dokumente/2016/GIZBaselineEReport_Final.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
G. K. C. Ding, “Life cycle energy assessment of Australian secondary schools,” Building Research & Information, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 487–500, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Jain, A. Agarwal, V. Jani, S. Singhal, P. Sharma, and R. Jalan, “Assessment of carbon neutrality and sustainability in educational campuses (CaNSEC): a general framework,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 76, pp. 131–143, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
United Nations, “Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform,” 2015, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/focussdgs.html.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Wackernagel and W. Rees, Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, New Society, Gabriola Island, 1996.
S. Bastianoni, A. Galli, V. Niccolucci, and R. M. Pulselli, “The ecological footprint of building construction,” WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, WIT press, England, U.K, vol. 93, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Kumar, P. Singh, N. R. Kapoor et al., “Ecological footprint of residential buildings in composite climate of India—a case study,” Sustainability, vol. 13, Article ID 11949, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. TengTeng and X. WuWu, “Eco-footprint-based life-cycle eco-efficiency assessment of building projects,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 39, pp. 160–168, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Liu, B. Zhang, J. Ren, C. Lian, J. Yuan, and Q. Hao, “Whole life-cycle ecological footprint of rural existing houses in northern China,” Buildings, vol. 8, no. 7, p. 92, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Rocamora, J. S. Guzmán, and M. Marrero, “Ecological footprint of the use and maintenance phase of buildings: maintenance tasks and final results,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 155, pp. 339–351, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Gottlieb, M. Kissinger, E. Vigoda-Gadot, and A. Haim, “Analyzing the ecological footprint at the institutional scale - the case of an Israeli high-school,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 18, pp. 91–97, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Husain and R. Prakash, “Life cycle ecological footprint assessment of an academic building,” Journal of the Institution of Engineers, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 97–110, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. K. Chau, T. M. Leung, and W. Y. Ng, “A review on life cycle assessment, life cycle energy assessment and life cycle carbon emissions assessment on buildings,” Applied Energy, vol. 143, pp. 395–413, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. B. Guinée, “Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 7, no. 5, p. 311, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Finnveden, M. Z. Hauschild, T. Ekvall et al., “Recent developments in life cycle assessment,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Footprint, “Global Footprint Network,” 2016, https://www.footprintnetwork.org/.
View at: Google Scholar
Ministry of Power Central Electricity Authority (MPCEA), “CO2 Baseline Database for the Indian Power Sector,” 2016, http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/others/thermal/tpece/cdm_co2/user_guide_ver11.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
Scripps, “Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO), the Keeling Curve,” 2017, https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/Accessed on April, 2107).
View at: Google Scholar
M. S. Mancini, A. Galli, V. Niccolucci et al., “Ecological footprint: refining the carbon footprint calculation,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 390–403, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Global Footprint Network, “Working Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts,” 2016, https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/documents/National_Footprint_Accounts_2016_Guidebook.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
Forest survey of India, “Ministry of environment, Forest & climate change,” 2015, http://fsi.nic.in/details.php?pgID=sb_62.
View at: Google Scholar
European Environment Agency (Eea), “EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook,” 2013, http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2013.
View at: Google Scholar
Central Public Works Department (Cpwd), “Analysis of rates for Delhi,” 2014, http://cpwd.gov.in/Publication/DAR14-Vol1.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
Fitness Blender, 2018, https://www.fitnessblender.com/articles/calories-burned-by-occupation-how-many-calories-does-my-job-burn.
National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), “Dietary Guidelines for Indians –A Manual,” 2011, http://ninindia.org/DietaryGuidelinesforNINwebsite.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
National sample survey office (Nsso), “Household Consumption of Various Goods and Services in India 20ll-12,” Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
N. Chambers, C. Simmons, and M. Wackernagel, Sharing Nature’s Interest: Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability, Sterling Earthscan, London, U.K, 2004.
Indian Horticulture Database (Ihd), “Ministry of Agriculture,” 2014, https://www.nhb.gov.in.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Husain and R. Prakash, “Ecological footprint reduction of built envelope in India,” Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 21, pp. 278–286, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Husain, S. ShuklaShukla, and R UmraoPrakash, “Thermal load reduction with green building envelope,” Open Journal of Energy Efficiency, vol. 06, no. 03, pp. 112–127, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Ramesh, R. Prakash, and K. K. Shukla, “Life cycle energy of low rise residential buildings in Indian context,” Open Journal of Energy Efficiency, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 108–118, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE), “Sustainable Energy Research Team,” 2011, https://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/sert/embodied.
View at: Google Scholar
B. V. Reddy and K. S. Jagadish, “Embodied energy of common and alternative building materials and technologies,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 129–137, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. C. Díaz, S. S. Berriel, U. Heierli et al., “Limestone calcined clay cement as a low-carbon solution to meet expanding cement demand in emerging economies,” Development Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 82–91, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Lc, “Limestone Calcined Clay Cement,” 2018, https://www.lc3.ch/the-material/potential/Accessed on April 2018).
View at: Google Scholar
International Energy Agency (Iea), “CO₂ Emissions from Fuel Combustion Highlights,” 2017, https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/co2-%20emissions-from-fuel-combustion-highlights-2017.html.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Biswas, D. Husain, and R. Prakash, “Life-cycle ecological footprint assessment of grid-connected rooftop solar PV system,” International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 529–538, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Husain, K. Tewari, M. Sharma, A. Ahmad, and R. Prakash, “Ecological footprint of multi-silicon photovoltaic module recycling,” Environmental Footprints of Recycled Products. Environmental Footprints and Eco-Design of Products and Processes, Springer, Singapore, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. W. Scholten, “Energy payback times of PV modules and systems,” Energy research Centre of the Netherlands, Workshop-Photovoltaik-Modultechnik, Germany, pp. 26-27, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
G. A. Keoleian and G. M. Lewis, “Application of life-cycle energy analysis to photovoltaic module design,” Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 287–300, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Baharwani, N. Meena, A. Dubey, U. Brighu, and J. Mathur, “Life cycle analysis of solar PV system: a review,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Development, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 183–190, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Ito, K. Kato, K. Komoto, T. Kichimi, and K. Kurokawa, “A comparative study on cost and life-cycle analysis for 100 MW very large-scale PV (VLS-PV) systems in deserts using m-Si, a-Si, CdTe, and CIS modules,” Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 17–30, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Laleman, J. Albrecht, and J. Dewulf, “Life cycle analysis to estimate the environmental impact of residential photovoltaic systems in regions with a low solar irradiation,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 267–281, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. A. Alsema and M. J. W. Scholten, “Reduction of the environmental impacts in crystalline silicon module manufacturing,” in Proceedings of the 22nd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, pp. 829–836, Milan Italy, January 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
E. A. Alsema, P. Frankl, and K. Kato, “Energy payback time of photovoltaic energy systems: present status and prospects,” in Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion, Vienna, Austria, July 1998.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Pacca, D. Sivaraman, and G. A. Keoleian, “Parameters affecting the life cycle performance of PV technologies and systems,” Energy Policy, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 3316–3326, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. I. Praseeda, B. V. V. Reddy, and M. Mani, “Embodied energy assessment of building materials in India using process and input-output analysis,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 86, pp. 677–686, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Husain and R. Prakash, “Ecological footprint reduction of building envelope in a tropical climate,” Journal of the Institution of Engineers, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 41–48, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
“International Renewable Energy Agency (Irena) and International Energy Agency (Iea),” End-of-life management: solar photovoltaic panels, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Yu and J. Leng, “Quantitative effects of glass roof system parameters on energy and daylighting performances: a bi-objective optimal design using response surface methodology,” Indoor and Built Environment, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 1268–1285, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Husain, A. A. Usama, I. A. S. A. Ansari, M. Sharma, A. Ahmad, and R. Prakash, Life Cycle Ecological Footprint Reduction for a Residential Building, nova science publishers, Hauppauge, NY, U.S.A, 2022.
X. Yang, M. Hu, J. Wu, and B. Zhao, “Building-information-modeling enabled life cycle assessment, a case study on carbon footprint accounting for a residential building in China,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 183, pp. 729–743, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Dilawar Husain et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

439

Downloads

449

Citations

Advances in Civil Engineering

Life Cycle Ecological Footprint Reduction for a Tropical Building

Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1. Ecological Footprint (EF)

1.2. Research Gap

1.3. Research Goal

1.4. Advantages and Disadvantages

2. Methodology

2.1. Life Cycle Ecological Footprint (EFT)

2.1.1. Energy and Materials Use (EFe&m)

2.1.2. Transportation (EFt)

2.1.3. Labour/Manpower (EFm)

2.1.4. Waste Assimilation (EFwe)

2.1.5. Water Use ()

2.1.6. Direct Land Use (EFland)

2.2. Measures for EF Reduction

2.2.1. Sustainable Building Materials

2.2.2. Renewable Energy Use

3. Building Description

4. Results

4.1. Life Cycle Ecological Footprint (EFT)

4.1.1. Energy and Materials (EFe&m)

4.1.2. Transportation (EFt)

4.1.3. Labour/Manpower (EFm)

4.1.4. Waste Assimilation (EFwe)

4.1.5. Water Use ()

4.1.6. Direct Land Use (EFland)

4.2. Reduction Potential in EFT

4.2.1. Sustainable Building Materials

4.2.2. Renewable System

4.3. Combined Effect of Building Materials and Renewable Systems

5. Conclusions

Abbreviations

Data Availability

Disclosure

Conflicts of Interest

References

Copyright

2.1. Life Cycle Ecological Footprint (EF_T)

2.1.1. Energy and Materials Use (EF_e&m)

2.1.2. Transportation (EF_t)

2.1.3. Labour/Manpower (EF_m)

2.1.4. Waste Assimilation (EF_we)

2.1.6. Direct Land Use (EF_land)

4.1. Life Cycle Ecological Footprint (EF_T)

4.1.1. Energy and Materials (EF_e&m)

4.1.2. Transportation (EF_t)

4.1.3. Labour/Manpower (EF_m)

4.1.4. Waste Assimilation (EF_we)

4.1.6. Direct Land Use (EF_land)

4.2. Reduction Potential in EF_T