IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i3p2360-d1048917.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

LEED-CI v4 Projects in Terms of Life Cycle Assessment in Manhattan, New York City: A Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Svetlana Pushkar

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel)

Abstract

Over the last decade, it has been clearly shown that the same achievements in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) projects can lead to different life cycle assessments (LCAs). However, the problem of contradictory achievements in LEED and LCA has not yet been resolved. This study aimed to identify and evaluate different strategies for LEED projects using LCAs. Thirty-nine LEED projects with the same characteristics—location and transportation, rating system, rating version, certification level, and space type—were collected and sorted by their energy and atmosphere (EA) category, “optimize energy performance” credit (EAc6) achievement into three equal groups (EA Low , EA Medium , and EA High , where each group includes 13 LEED projects) to minimize the influence of uncontrolled factors on the LEED project strategy. The author focused on two extreme groups with very different EAc6 credit scores: EA Low (13 projects) and EA High (13 projects). The groups were compared across LEED categories and credits. Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney and Cliff’s δ test results showed that the EA Low and EA High groups are associated with high/low achievements in materials-related credits such as “interiors life cycle impact reduction”, “building product disclosure and optimization—material ingredients”, and “low-emitting materials”. As a result, the EA Low and EA High groups were reclassified into Energy Low –Materials High and Energy high –Materials Low certification strategy groups. In this context, LCAs were used to assess the differences between the two strategies. The results showed that if natural gas was used for operational energy (OE), the Energy High –Materials Low strategy showed lower environmental damage compared to the Energy Low –Materials High strategy ( p = 0.0635); meanwhile, if photovoltaic energy was used for OE, the Energy Low –Materials High strategy showed lower environmental damage compared to the Energy High –Materials Low strategy ( p = 0.0036). The author recommends using the LEED protocol and the LCA method in parallel to better reflect the environmental impact of different certification strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Svetlana Pushkar, 2023. "LEED-CI v4 Projects in Terms of Life Cycle Assessment in Manhattan, New York City: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-16, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2360-:d:1048917
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2360/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2360/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jakub Veselka & Marie Nehasilová & Karolína Dvořáková & Pavla Ryklová & Martin Volf & Jan Růžička & Antonín Lupíšek, 2020. "Recommendations for Developing a BIM for the Purpose of LCA in Green Building Certifications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Wenliang Li, 2020. "Quantifying the Building Energy Dynamics of Manhattan, New York City, Using an Urban Building Energy Model and Localized Weather Data," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    3. Svetlana Pushkar, 2022. "Life-Cycle Assessment in the LEED-CI v4 Categories of Location and Transportation (LT) and Energy and Atmosphere (EA) in California: A Case Study of Two Strategies for LEED Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-18, August.
    4. Yannick Lessard & Chirjiv Anand & Pierre Blanchet & Caroline Frenette & Ben Amor, 2018. "LEED v4: Where Are We Now? Critical Assessment through the LCA of an Office Building Using a Low Impact Energy Consumption Mix," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(5), pages 1105-1116, October.
    5. Di Lu & Matthew J. Realff, 2013. "The Design of a Sustainability Assessment Standard Using Life Cycle Information," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 17(4), pages 493-503, 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. Svetlana Pushkar, 2023. "Life-Cycle Assessment of LEED-CI v4 Projects in Shanghai, China: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, March.

    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. Marie Nehasilová & Antonín Lupíšek & Petra Lupíšková Coufalová & Tomáš Kupsa & Jakub Veselka & Barbora Vlasatá & Julie Železná & Pavla Kunová & Martin Volf, 2022. "Rapid Environmental Assessment of Buildings: Linking Environmental and Cost Estimating Databases," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Yali Chen & Dan Huang & Zhen Liu & Mohamed Osmani & Peter Demian, 2022. "Construction 4.0, Industry 4.0, and Building Information Modeling (BIM) for Sustainable Building Development within the Smart City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-37, August.
    3. Rakhyun Kim & Myung-Kwan Lim & Seungjun Roh & Won-Jun Park, 2021. "Analysis of the Characteristics of Environmental Impacts According to the Cut-Off Criteria Applicable to the Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) of Apartment Buildings in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Jan Růžička & Jakub Veselka & Zdeněk Rudovský & Stanislav Vitásek & Petr Hájek, 2022. "BIM and Automation in Complex Building Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-20, February.
    5. Zhuyuan Xue & Hongbo Liu & Qinxiao Zhang & Jingxin Wang & Jilin Fan & Xia Zhou, 2019. "The Impact Assessment of Campus Buildings Based on a Life Cycle Assessment–Life Cycle Cost Integrated Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-24, December.
    6. Amin, Amin & Mourshed, Monjur, 2024. "Weather and climate data for energy applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    7. Svetlana Pushkar, 2023. "Life-Cycle Assessment of LEED-CI v4 Projects in Shanghai, China: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, March.
    8. Roni Rinne & Hüseyin Emre Ilgın & Markku Karjalainen, 2022. "Comparative Study on Life-Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint of Hybrid, Concrete and Timber Apartment Buildings in Finland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-24, January.
    9. Kikki Lambrecht Ipsen & Massimo Pizzol & Morten Birkved & Ben Amor, 2024. "Environmental performance of eco‐design strategies applied to the building sector," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 28(3), pages 556-572, June.
    10. Tatjana Vilutienė & Rasa Džiugaitė-Tumėnienė & Diana Kalibatienė & Darius Kalibatas, 2021. "How BIM Contributes to a Building’s Energy Efficiency throughout Its Whole Life Cycle: Systematic Mapping," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-27, October.
    11. Ehsan Kamel, 2022. "A Systematic Literature Review of Physics-Based Urban Building Energy Modeling (UBEM) Tools, Data Sources, and Challenges for Energy Conservation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-24, November.
    12. Giovanna Acampa & Lorenzo Diana & Giorgia Marino & Rossella Marmo, 2021. "Assessing the Transformability of Public Housing through BIM," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-24, May.

    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:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2360-:d:1048917. 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.