IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i7p2609-d336940.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life Cycle Environmental and Cost Performance of Prefabricated Buildings

Author

Listed:
  • He Wang

    (School of Environmental Engineering, the University of Kitakyushu, Kitakyushu 8080135, Japan)

  • Yinqi Zhang

    (School of Environmental Engineering, the University of Kitakyushu, Kitakyushu 8080135, Japan)

  • Weijun Gao

    (School of Environmental Engineering, the University of Kitakyushu, Kitakyushu 8080135, Japan
    iSMART, Qingdao University of Technology, Qingdao 266033, China)

  • Soichiro Kuroki

    (School of Environmental Engineering, the University of Kitakyushu, Kitakyushu 8080135, Japan)

Abstract

Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the construction industry continue to increase at an annual rate of 1.5%. It is particularly important to understand the characteristics of the building life cycle to reduce its environmental impact. This paper aims to assess the environmental impact of prefabricated buildings and traditional cast-in-situ buildings over the building life cycle using a hybrid model. A case study of a building with a 40% assembly rate in Japan was employed for evaluation. It concluded that the total energy consumption, and carbon emissions of the prefabricated building was 7.54%, and 7.17%, respectively, less than that of the traditional cast-in-situ building throughout the whole life cycle. The carbon emissions reduction in the operation phase reached a peak of 4.05 kg CO 2 /year∙m 2 . The prefabricated building was found to cost less than the traditional cast-in-situ building, reducing the price per square meter by 10.62%. The prefabricated building has advantages in terms of reducing global warming, acid rain, and health damage by 15% reduction. With the addition of the assembly rate, the carbon emissions and cost dropped, bottoming out when the assembly rate was 60%. After that, an upward trend was shown with the assembly rate increasing. Additionally, this study outlined that the prefabricated pile foundations is not applicable due to its high construction cost and environmental impact.

Suggested Citation

  • He Wang & Yinqi Zhang & Weijun Gao & Soichiro Kuroki, 2020. "Life Cycle Environmental and Cost Performance of Prefabricated Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:7:p:2609-:d:336940
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2609/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2609/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nässén, Jonas & Holmberg, John & Wadeskog, Anders & Nyman, Madeleine, 2007. "Direct and indirect energy use and carbon emissions in the production phase of buildings: An input–output analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1593-1602.
    2. Stephan, André & Stephan, Laurent, 2016. "Life cycle energy and cost analysis of embodied, operational and user-transport energy reduction measures for residential buildings," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 445-464.
    3. Heng Li & H. L. Guo & Martin Skitmore & Ting Huang & K. Y. N. Chan & Greg Chan, 2011. "Rethinking prefabricated construction management using the VP-based IKEA model in Hong Kong," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 233-245.
    4. Tian, Xin & Chang, Miao & Tanikawa, Hiroki & Shi, Feng & Imura, Hidefumi, 2013. "Structural decomposition analysis of the carbonization process in Beijing: A regional explanation of rapid increasing carbon dioxide emission in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 279-286.
    5. Leontief, Wassily, 1970. "Environmental Repercussions and the Economic Structure: An Input-Output Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 52(3), pages 262-271, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lei Yu & Yang Wang & Dezhi Li, 2023. "Calculating and Analyzing Carbon Emission Factors of Prefabricated Components," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, May.
    2. López-Guerrero, Rafael E. & Vera, Sergio & Carpio, Manuel, 2022. "A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the sustainability of industrialised building systems: A bibliographic review and analysis of case studies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    3. H.-Ping Tserng & Cheng-Mo Chou & Yun-Tsui Chang, 2021. "The Key Strategies to Implement Circular Economy in Building Projects—A Case Study of Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, January.
    4. Fanrong Ji & Zhaoyuan Luo & Xiancun Hu & Yunquan Nan & Aifang Wei, 2023. "A DPSIR Framework to Evaluate and Predict the Development of Prefabricated Buildings: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-17, September.
    5. Zhanyong Jin & Shuang Xia & Huanhuan Cao & Xiaohan Geng & Zimeng Cheng & Hongbo Sun & Menglin Jia & Qingyue Liu & Jie Sun, 2022. "Evaluation and Optimization of Sustainable Development Level of Construction Industrialization: Case Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-19, July.
    6. Mengwei Ye & Junwu Wang & Xiang Si & Shiman Zhao & Qiyun Huang, 2022. "Analysis on Dynamic Evolution of the Cost Risk of Prefabricated Building Based on DBN," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-19, February.
    7. Houchao Sun & Yuwei Fang & Minggan Yin & Feiting Shi, 2023. "Research on the Restrictive Factors of Vigorous Promotion of Prefabricated Buildings in Yancheng under the Background of “Double Carbon”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, January.
    8. Qianqian Zhao & Junzhen Li & Roman Fediuk & Sergey Klyuev & Darya Nemova, 2021. "Benefit Evaluation Model of Prefabricated Buildings in Seasonally Frozen Regions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-18, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhang, Lixiao & Yang, Min & Zhang, Pengpeng & Hao, Yan & Lu, Zhongming & Shi, Zhimin, 2021. "De-coal process in urban China: What can we learn from Beijing's experience?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    2. Wang, H. & Ang, B.W. & Su, Bin, 2017. "Assessing drivers of economy-wide energy use and emissions: IDA versus SDA," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 585-599.
    3. Dixit, Manish K., 2017. "Life cycle embodied energy analysis of residential buildings: A review of literature to investigate embodied energy parameters," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 390-413.
    4. Stephan, André & Stephan, Laurent, 2020. "Achieving net zero life cycle primary energy and greenhouse gas emissions apartment buildings in a Mediterranean climate," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    5. Huang, Lizhen & Krigsvoll, Guri & Johansen, Fred & Liu, Yongping & Zhang, Xiaoling, 2018. "Carbon emission of global construction sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P2), pages 1906-1916.
    6. Yang, Siyuan & Fath, Brian & Chen, Bin, 2016. "Ecological network analysis of embodied particulate matter 2.5 – A case study of Beijing," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 882-888.
    7. Carvalho, Ariovaldo Lopes de & Antunes, Carlos Henggeler & Freire, Fausto & Henriques, Carla Oliveira, 2015. "A hybrid input–output multi-objective model to assess economic–energy–environment trade-offs in Brazil," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 769-785.
    8. Xiaoyu Liu & Xian’en Wang & Junnian Song & Haiyan Duan & Shuo Wang, 2019. "Why Are the Carbon Footprints of China’s Urban Households Rising? An Input–Output Analysis and Structural Decomposition Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-18, December.
    9. Li, Huanan & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2015. "Is it possible for China to reduce its total CO2 emissions?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 438-446.
    10. Tarancon, Miguel Angel & Del Río, Pablo, 2012. "Assessing energy-related CO2 emissions with sensitivity analysis and input-output techniques," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 161-170.
    11. Zhang, Moyi & Huang, Xian-Jin, 2012. "Effects of industrial restructuring on carbon reduction: An analysis of Jiangsu Province, China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 515-526.
    12. Wang, Ke & Yang, Kexin & Wei, Yi-Ming & Zhang, Chi, 2018. "Shadow prices of direct and overall carbon emissions in China’s construction industry: A parametric directional distance function-based sensitive estimation," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 180-193.
    13. Taelim Choi & Randall W. Jackson & Nancey Green Leigh & Christa D. Jensen, 2011. "A Baseline Input—Output Model with Environmental Accounts (IOEA) Applied to E-Waste Recycling," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 34(1), pages 3-33, January.
    14. Arik Levinson, 2009. "Technology, International Trade, and Pollution from US Manufacturing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 2177-2192, December.
    15. Daniel Moran & Richard Wood, 2014. "Convergence Between The Eora, Wiod, Exiobase, And Openeu'S Consumption-Based Carbon Accounts," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 245-261, September.
    16. Albert, Osei-Owusu Kwame & Marianne, Thomsen & Jonathan, Lindahl & Nino, Javakhishvili Larsen & Dario, Caro, 2020. "Tracking the carbon emissions of Denmark's five regions from a producer and consumer perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    17. Li, Yilin & Chen, Bin & Li, Chaohui & Li, Zhi & Chen, Guoqian, 2020. "Energy perspective of Sino-US trade imbalance in global supply chains," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    18. Zhu, Bangzhu & Su, Bin & Li, Yingzhu & Ng, Tsan Sheng, 2020. "Embodied energy and intensity in China’s (normal and processing) exports and their driving forces, 2005-2015," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    19. Airebule, Palizha & Cheng, Haitao & Ishikawa, Jota, 2023. "Assessing carbon emissions embodied in international trade based on shared responsibility," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    20. Alexandros Gkatsikos & Konstadinos Mattas, 2021. "The Paradox of the Virtual Water Trade Balance in the Mediterranean Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:7:p:2609-:d:336940. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.