Variability of building environmental assessment tools on evaluating carbon emissions

With an increasing importance of sustainability in construction, more and more clients and designers employ building environmental assessment (BEA) tools to evaluate the environmental friendliness of their building facilities, and one important aspect of evaluation in the BEA models is the assessment of carbon emissions. However, in the absence of any agreed framework for carbon auditing and benchmarking, the results generated by the BEA tools might vary significantly which could lead to confusion or misinterpretation on the carbon performance of a building. This study thus aims to unveil the properties of and the standard imposed by the current BEA models on evaluating the life cycle carbon emissions. The analyses cover the (i) weighting of energy efficiency and emission levels among various environmental performance indicators; (ii) building life cycle stages in which carbon is taken into consideration; (iii) objectiveness of assessment; (iv) baseline set for carbon assessment; (v) mechanism for benchmarking the emission level; and (v) limitations of the carbon assessment approaches. Results indicate that the current BEA schemes focus primarily on operational carbon instead of the emissions generated throughout the entire building life cycle. Besides, the baseline and benchmark for carbon evaluation vary significantly among the BEA tools based on the analytical results of a hypothetical building. The findings point to the needs for a more transparent framework for carbon auditing and benchmarking in BEA modeling.

► Carbon emission evaluation in building environmental assessment schemes are studied. ► Simulative carbon emission is modeled for building environmental assessment schemes. ► Carbon assessments focus primarily on operational stage instead of entire lifecycle. ► Baseline and benchmark of carbon assessment vary greatly among BEA schemes. ► A more transparent and comprehensive framework for carbon assessment is required.