Building Material Use and Associated Environmental Impacts in China

Article Cite This: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 14006−14014

pubs.acs.org/est

Building Material Use and Associated Environmental Impacts in China 2000−2015 Beijia Huang,*,†,‡ Feng Zhao,† Tomer Fishman,‡,§ Wei-Qiang Chen,∥,⊥,# Niko Heeren,‡ and Edgar G. Hertwich‡ †

College of Environment and Architecture, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China Center for Industrial Ecology, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511,United States § IDC Herzliya School of Sustainability, Herzliya 46150, Israel ∥ Key Lab of Urban Environment and Health, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Science, Xiamen 361021, China ⊥ Xiamen Key Lab of Urban Metabolism, Xiamen 46150, China # University of Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing 100049, China

Downloaded via IOWA STATE UNIV on January 15, 2019 at 07:22:32 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

‡

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: A rapidly increasing use of building materials poses threats to resources and the environment. Using novel, localized life cycle inventories and building material intensity data, this study quantifies the resource use of building materials in mainland China and evaluates their embodied environmental impacts. Newly built floor area and related material consumption grew 11% per annum from 2000 to 2015, leveling off at the end of this period. Concrete, sand, gravel, brick, and cement were the main materials used. Spatially, construction activities expanded from east China into the central part of the country. Cement, steel, and concrete production are the key contributors to associated environmental impacts, e.g., cement and steel each account for around 25% of the global warming potential from building materials. Building materials contribute considerably to the impact categories of human toxicity, fossil depletion, and global warming, emphasizing that greenhouse gas emissions should not be the sole focus of research on environmental impacts of building materials. These findings quantitatively shed light on the urgent need to reduce environmental impacts and to conserve energy in the manufacturing processes of building materials on the national scale.

■

INTRODUCTION

the building sector such as green building material certifications. A fair number of studies investigated building material flows and stocks on the national scale. Examples include Kapur et al.,10 Fishman et al.,11,12 Tanikawa et al.,13 Heeren and Hellweg,14 and Sandberg et al.15,16 who estimated building material stocks in countries such as Japan, the United States, Switzerland, and Norway with various methods. There has also been a growing interest in the rapid urbanization of China. For instance, Hu et al.17 modeled the evolution of steel demand for buildings in China, and Cao et al.18 estimated Chinese in-use cement stocks and relevant flow characteristics. Hong et al.19forecasted that building areas and material stocks in China would reach their peak around 2028. The models of Huang et al.8 and Cai et al.20 demonstrated that prolonging Chinese

Globally, building materials represent the largest material flows entering urban areas after water, and the largest waste category.1 Around half of all materials extracted from the earth’s crust annually are transformed into building materials and products.2,3 The extensive use of building materials has important impacts on resource consumption and the environment.4 Environmental problems associated with the building material consumption extend from the local scale (e.g., terrestrial ecotoxicity) to the global scale (e.g., Climate Change).5 China’s rapid economic and social development has been associated with an unprecedented boom in building construction.6,7 Annual construction in China accounts for almost half of the world’s building construction8 and has caused substantial resource demands and serious pollution. The study of embodied environmental impacts9 of building materials in China is important for a deeper understanding of how buildings cause environmental impacts. It can offer a basis for establishing environmental policies and control strategies in © 2018 American Chemical Society

Received: Revised: Accepted: Published: 14006

July 26, 2018 November 8, 2018 November 9, 2018 November 9, 2018 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b04104 Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 14006−14014

Article

Environmental Science & Technology

Figure 1. Research steps.

■

METHODS Research Procedures. The research was conducted in three steps as illustrated in Figure 1: (1) Classify buildings and building materials into types; (2) Calculate the annual building material use from 2000 to 2015; and (3) Estimate environmental impacts associated with building materials production. In step one, building types were classified as residential and seven types of nonresidential buildings (Office, Education and Cultural, Research, Plant and Warehouse, Commercial, Healthcare and Medicine, and other buildings) in accordance with the Chinese statistical yearbooks.36 The key building material categories were identified to be steel, concrete, cement (for nonconcrete uses, for instance plaster and mortar), wood, brick, sand (nonconcrete use), gravel (nonconcrete use), limestone, glass, and ceramic tiles, as indicated by Hong,37 Huang,38 and Chang.6 We note that some materials not investigated in this research, such as aluminum, may also cause non-negligible influence on the environment due to their embodied energy and impacts and should be a focus of future studies. In step two, the annual building material use from 2000 to 2015 was calculated by multiplying annual constructed floor areas for each type of buildings in each province by building material composition intensity coefficients:

building lifetimes and strengthening the recycling of materials are two key measures for reducing raw material demand and associated emissions. Focusing on the environmental impacts of buildings materials, multiple studies5,21−24 quantified energy consumption during the building production process and assessed corresponding GHG emissions. Other studies25−31 estimated cradle-to-gate emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and other pollutants associated with building materials, although some were limited to specific materials including concrete, steel, and cement. Comparative analyses of various environmental impacts of different building materials were conducted32−34 to identify environmentally friendly materials. Thormark,33 Bribián et al.34 and Heeren et al.35 found that the choice of materials such as wood and recycled materials can considerably reduce the associated environmental impacts of building materials. Previous research focused mainly on the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, including trade-offs between building material production and building operation. There has been less focus on other environmental impacts such as toxicity, resource depletion, and eutrophication caused by building material production. Especially for China, most studies were limited to individual materials such as steel or cement. Moreover, comprehensive estimation of Chinese building material use trends covering both the spatial and temporal dimensions is still scant. To fill these research gaps, this study investigates: (1) What kinds, how much, and in which building types have building materials been used in recent years in China, and what are their development trends? (2) What are the primary environmental impacts caused by producing these building materials? (3) What is the spatial distribution of the key embodied environmental impacts? In addition to the nationwide time series of 16 years, we also explore the variation of material use and associated environmental impact across different provinces of Mainland China.

MUit , k =

∑ (Bit,,jk × MIi ,j) j

MUit =

∑ MUit ,k k

(1a)

(1b)

t,k

MUi is the use (which can also be termed the consumption, inflow, or the gross addition to the stock of buildings) of material i in province k in year t in kg, summed for the eight building types j; MUtt is the annual material use for all provinces of China; Bjt,k is the total newly constructed floor area of building type j in province k in year t; and MIi,j is the building material composition intensity coefficient, the average 14007

DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b04104 Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 14006−14014

Article


Figure 2. Materials use intensities (kg/m2) for the eight building types in China, 2015.

ratio of mass of building material i per floor area (m2) of building type j (kg/m2). Data of the annually constructed floor area (B) for each type of building were collected from the National Statistical Yearbooks on Construction (NBS, 2001−2016)38 and Construction Industry Statistical Yearbooks (CSYC, 2001− 2016).39 The building material composition intensity coefficients for each building type are derived from Chang5 and Zhao et al.,40 in which MI values were collected and estimated in a bottom-up way, including building evaluation manuals, assets evaluation data and parameters manuals and onsite investigations. We took the average value when residential buildings were classified in different groups. Volume data were converted into mass by density for specific materials. These data sources have not clearly indicated any changes to building material intensities within our research period or among provinces, and so we assume them to be spatially and temporally uniform (Figure 2). Further building material intensity data are detailed in the Supporting Information, SI, Table S1. In step three, the embodied environmental impacts associated with the annual building material use (MUit,k), were estimated using life cycle assessment. The life cycle inventories for most of the materials are from the Sinocenter database 2014,43 while concrete (CN, C30/70) and cement (CN, average) are from Gabi 6 because the Sinocenter data not yet included these two materials. Environmental impacts per kg of building material (Ek) are evaluated by applying the midpoint parameters of the ReCiPe 2016 H method, which is a commonly used life cycle impact assessment method with upto-date environmental impact indicators and normalization values.41 Moreover, the ReCiPe method covers China with its global scope impact mechanism. Besides the evaluation of environmental impact per kg of building material (Ek), we also analyze environmental impact considering the annual material use amount (Ev). This is important because materials are used in different amounts for specific buildings, and it is quite possible that materials with higher per-mass environmental burden are consumed at lower rates and vice versa. Ev was calculated according to eq 2. Ev it, x = MUit × Ek i , x

Evti,x is the total magnitude of environmental impact x for material i in year t from all construction, summed for the eight building types j; Eki,j,x is the per-kg environmental impact x of material i in building type j; and MUt,k i is the annual use of material i of year t in province k. We carried out environmental impact characterization and normalization on the midpoint level42,43 to compare the contribution of building materials to the total global impacts in different impact categories. In normalization, the characterized results of each impact category are divided by a selected reference value (R) which brings all the results to the same scale (eq 3). Such normalization facilitates the interpretation of the results and helps us link the relative contributions of each building material to each type of environmental impact. The normalization factors in our study refer to version 1.08 of LCA ReCiPe midpoint normalization world level 2000,44 and the reference value in our study is set as China’s population in 2000 (1.27 billion)38 multiplied by the per capita world level impact in ReCiPe. Nv it, x =

Ev it, x Rx

(3)

Nvti,x is the normalization result of environmental impact x for the total magnitude of environmental impact x for material i in year t from all construction, R(x) is the reference factor for environmental impact category x; Evti,x is the total magnitude of environmental impact x for material i in year t from all construction, summed for the eight building types j. Past studies have shown that different life cycle impact assessment methods may provide different results when analyzing impacts from building materials,47 and so we also use the CML 200145 method to compare and discuss our key findings, noting that most other LCA approaches are not fit for the case of China. The normalization factors of CML2001 (version Jan 2016, World level 2000) are used in this study. System Boundaries. The system boundary of this study is the production phase of building materials (cradle-to-gate), which means the associated environmental impact we evaluated include raw material extraction, processing and manufacturing. Our data and methods enable to estimate the “embodied” environmental impact, without detecting where the materials are produced, i.e., where the environmental pollutions are emitted. The research period is 2000 to 2015,

(2) 14008


Article

Environmental Science & Technology because China began to account annual construction floor area by building types from 2000 onward.

indicator results indicates a consistent order of the environmental burden ranking. Detailed characterized midpoint environmental impacts per kg of building material with both methods are provided in the SI Tables S3 and S4. Scaling up the ReCiPe environmental impacts from 1 kg to annual use amounts (Ev), we aggregate the contribution of each material to every impact category. The assessment results are illustrated in Figure 5 using 2015 as an exemplary case (the

■

RESULTS Building Materials Use. Growth of New Building Area in China (2000−2015). From 2000 to 2015, China’s construction industry experienced rapid development and the average annual growth rate of new construction area was 11% in this period. The construction area of residential buildings has been expanding much more rapidly than the nonresidential building types (Figure. 3). In 2015, the newly added construction area

Figure 3. Annual gross new constructed building floor area in China (2000−2015). Figure 5. Environmental impact indicators associated with the production of building material used in 2015, using the ReCiPe method, normalized to global indicators in 2000 (Nv, cf. eq 2).

of residential buildings was about twice that of nonresidential buildings. The newly constructed building area leveled off in 2015, perhaps due to the growing control of real estate development from both central and local governments.46 A research report from ZhongShan Realty Research Center indicated that the supply of construction land from the government has been declining since 2013.47 Trends in Building Materials Use (2000−2015). In the year 2000 China used 2 billion tons of building materials, a number that increased to 10 billion tons by 2014 before leveling off (Figure 4). The most used building materials by mass were concrete, sand, and gravel, followed by bricks and cement for nonconcrete applications. Steel, limestone, and wood were used in relatively lower quantities. Environmental Impacts. In the Chinese case, steel, lime, glass, wood, and cement were found to have comparatively higher environmental impacts per kg (Ek) than the other materials, using ReCiPe. A comparison with the CML

13 highest of the 18 environmental indicators are presented; Absolute characterized environmental impacts and normalized results using ReCiPe can be found in Supporting Information Tables S5 and S6). Overall, building materials contribute most significantly to the environmental indicators of human toxicity, fossil fuel depletion, global warming, and metal depletion based on midpoint characterization and normalization. In general, four materialscement, steel, concrete, and brickare the key contributors to the environmental impacts of building materials. The contributions of some materials are due to their high use (e.g., concrete, sand, gravel, and brick). Other materials have disproportionate contribution to various impacts despite their comparatively low use by mass (cf. Figure 4). Steel is the most prominent example, but also lime, glass, and wood. Cement stands out as a material whose high

Figure 4. Annual use of building materials for newly constructed buildings, 2000−2015 (bar plot, left-hand axis) and annual growth rate of building material use (line plot, right-hand axis). 14009


Article


global warming, human toxicity, and fossil depletion are the top impacts. Spatial Disparities. The spatial distributions of annual new constructed floor area in 2000 and 2015 are compared in Figure 7. In 2000, construction activities primarily occurred in China’s eastern region, especially in Jiangsu (JS) and Zhejiang (ZJ) provinces. Since then construction has expanded westward to central China, including provinces such as Sichuan (SC), Hebei (HB), and Henan (HN). We noticed that province with the largest populationGuangdong experienced slower construction in this period compared with the eastern and central provinces. This corresponds with a local statistic report52 revealing that Guangdong now has lower per-capita living space than Zhejiang and Jiangsu. Residential buildings are the main construction types in all provinces, but there appear to be regional variances in the proportions of other building types. As revealed in Figure 7(b), nonresidential buildings in Shanghai (SH), Beijing (BJ), and Zhejiang (ZJ) provinces have relatively higher proportion compared to other provinces. Figure 7 also indicates the spatial disparity of GHG emissions associated with building material use in 2000 and 2015 (gray color scale). Nation-wide embodied GHG emissions associated with building materials increased sharply from 490 million tons (Mt) CO2eq in 2000 to 2.4Gt CO2eq per year in 2015. The embodied GHG emissions of building materials in 2015 accounts for 24% of China’s total GHG emissions (10Gt53). Similar to the spatial distribution of annual constructed floor area, GHG emissions in 2000 were the highest in eastern China, while a rising trend has begun to emerge in the central part of China in recent years. The spatial distributions of other environmental impacts beyond GHG are exemplified by human toxicity and fossil depletion in the SI Figures S3 and S4. The spatial distributions of the three environmental impacts are similar because the leading environmental impacts are closely correlated with the use of concrete, cement, and steel.

contribution to impacts is a combination of both high usage and high impacts per kg. Tracing the sources of these key environmental indicators, human toxicity is primarily caused by the heavy metals (including arsenic, cadmium, zinc, lead, etc.48) emitted in the mining and manufacturing processes of cement, concrete, and bricks. Fossil depletion is mainly caused by the large demand of coal, petroleum, electricity, and natural gas in the manufacturing process of steel, brick, gravel, and cement. The largest contributions to global warming come from steel and cement production and each account for around 25% of total impact from building materials (Figure 6). Global

Figure 6. Share of global warming impacts from building material use in China in 2015.

warming burdens originate in the large energy consumption during the production processes of steel, cement, and concrete49−51 and in the chemical reactions of clinker production for cement manufacture.55 Characterization and normalization using the alternative CML method (SI Tables S7 and S8) consistently indicate that

Figure 7. Spatial distribution of the annual constructed floor area and associated GHG emission in China in (a) 2000 and (b) 2015. 14010


Article


■

DISCUSSION China’s Development Trends. Our findings quantify the notion that the construction boom during 2000−2015 contributed significantly to the rapid growth in pollution and resource depletion in China. China’s construction industry experienced rapid development. Annually constructed floor area rate increased around 5-fold in the period of 2000 to 2015. Studies of the trajectory of building material consumption of other countries have shown that the rate of new construction of dwellings declines after a period of rapid growth, for example since 1970 in Norway54 and 1995 in The Netherlands. 55 In Japan’s case, material accumulation increased rapidly in the 1960s, peaked in 2005−2008, and has decreased slightly since then.56 Our results show that in China inflow was static in 2014−2015. Other research suggests that the annual demand for building materials began to decrease already around 2010.39 One scenario indicates that the building material stock may reach its peak in 2030.7 It remains to be seen whether the 2014−2015 trend indicates a long-term stabilization of annual construction rates, an inflection point that may ultimately lead to a stabilization of the building stock, or simply an outlier. The spatial disparity analysis reveals regional differences in building material use and embodied impacts, according to the building types constructed. Our results display the expansion of construction activities from China’s eastern region in 2000 into the central parts of the country in recent years. This migration of new construction activities indicates a need to strengthen building material regulations in provinces such as Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Sichuan, and Henan. At the same time, focus should be given to the building types consuming the largest amount of building materialsresidential buildings, plants, and warehouses, as revealed in our study (see SI Table S9). Policy strategies such as green building materials certification programs should be given attention and reinforced to promote the cleaner production for building materials, since now the program covers only concrete, glass, and ceramic tile, and is in its beginning stage of implementation in China.57 Extended producer responsibility may also be an option for the high recycling potential materials such as concrete, steel, and wood.58 Holding building material producers responsible for managing certain building waste encourages manufacturers to design more environmentally friendly and recyclable materials. Contribution of Environmental Impacts. Past studies often analyzed the impacts of individual building materials or the magnitudes of consumption, but rarely combined both. Our findings indicate that building materials with high environmental impacts per kg in China are steel, lime, glass, wood, and cement, consistent with international studies.33,59,60 However, when considering the environmental impact of material use in 2015, midpoint assessment results of both ReCiPe and CML indicate that human toxicity, fossil depletion, and global warming cause the highest environmental impacts as a share of national totals. On the basis of this finding and the fact that GHG emission burdens are currently the only environmental indicator for evaluating green building material products in the current certification program in China,58 other key environmental indicators such as human toxicity and fossil depletion are highly recommended to be included in the certification system. Our approach enables us to identify the contribution of specific impact and to see whether it is from a material’s per-

unit associated impact or from the magnitude of usage. We exemplify this in Figure 8 for the four major environmental

Figure 8. Contribution to key environmental impacts by material. Bubble size represents the magnitude of environmental impact considering the annual material use (Ev) and the location is a function of the per-kg environmental burden (Ek, horizontal axis) and annual material use in 2015 (vertical axis). Presented are global warming (a), human toxicity (b), fossil depletion (c), and metal depletion (d). Visualizations for the other environmental impacts are included in the SI. Note that units differ for the horizontal axes of each panel.

impacts we identified: human toxicity, fossil fuel depletion, climate change, and metal depletion in 2015. This visualization shows that although steel, cement, and concrete are key contributing materials for the estimated impacts and have similar magnitudes of Ev, the origin of each impact is different and thus also the potential measures to reduce impacts. Concrete’s impact per kg (Ek) is relatively low and the magnitude of impacts is mostly from the sheer amount used, as seen in Figure 8 panels a and b. In comparison, steel’s high impacts are due to its high per-kg impacts rather than the masses used (panels a, c, and d). Cement’s contributions to impacts are a combination of both the scale of use and the perkg associated impacts. Contribution analysis for other impact categories are included in the SI Figure S3, further showcasing the variability in impacts by each material. The findings shed light on strategies for mitigate certain environmental impacts. Taking mitigating global warming as an example, reducing the energy use and using less CO2-intensive energy sources in steel and lime production are presumably the most effective approaches. Whereas in the case of concrete, gravel, and bricks, the focus should be on reducing consumption or looking for substitute materials with lower GHG burden such as hollow concrete blocks, stabilized soil blocks or fly ash.61 Research Limitation and Suggestion. One simplification of data in this study is that building material intensity coefficients are spatially and temporally uniform within our research period 2000−2015. In practice, building material intensity is likely to vary in different climate, geography, urban, or rural59,62 settings. Moreover, with transformation of 14011



■

construction technology and technical improvements, building materials composition intensities may change over time. According to Yu and Li,63 Chang6,64 and other scholars,65 the use rates of steel, cement, and concrete has been increasing in China’s buildings since 1990, while the use of brick has decreased, and the scenarios of Wang et al.66 for buildings in mainland China suggest that by 2050 two out of every three buildings in China will be reinforced concrete or steel framed. Considering that concrete and steel both have high environmental burdens, their increasing use will undoubtedly lead to higher environmental impacts. The scale of change within China calls for further study of the spatial and temporal differences in building material use in order to enable an investigation of the contribution of different changes to the overall development. Among the ten materials discussed in our study, the life cycle inventory of eight come from a domestic source, the Sinocenter database (another two are from Gabi 6 database). Sinocenter was released in 2014 and is the only available comprehensive database containing the key building materials in China. Although this is a real improvement over using international data which is often not representative of Chinese manufacturing, there is still room for improvement. The available inventories may not be sufficiently representative of historical production processes and so the assessment of the earlier years in our study may have higher uncertainties. Uncertainties also exist in the LCA methodologies we applied. For instance, we adopted the normalization factor of ReCiPe world level 2000 since this is the most recently updated one, and there is no published reference for normalization with respect to China. More updated and local reference factors would allow us to expand the analytical approach we introduce in this study as a tool for identification of associated environmental impacts on the national scale. We use a novel, localized data set including the production inventories, the material intensity coefficients, and annual constructed area for each building type at the province level. We include these data in the SI, aiming to offer transparency and open data.67 These data sets can be used to further explore research topics related with building material use and associated environmental impacts in China. One could expand the estimation period of building materials, including identifying the manufacturing location, the demolition material treatment and recycling actions, to estimate and reveal approaches to enhance the sustainability of building materials in the whole life cycle. Regarding the building material waste, one can estimate the future end-of-life flows (building material waste production amount) if the inflows data (annual building material use) in our study can be integrated with stocks data,68 which will be important for policy options in building material waste management and circular economy. It would be also important to explore the dynamics between building material use and socio-economic factors,69,70 for instance the demographic changes, per capita building material stock, local GDP, and urbanization transformation. Given that China will probably continue its urban expansion in the next 1−2 decades,71 it is important to establish future dynamic scenario models to identify the driving forces of the building material use, and further seek strategies for facilitate regional and national sustainable development in the building sector.

Article

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b04104.

■

Building material intensity index; embodied environmental impact after characterization and normalization applying ReCiPe and CML; Spatial distribution of embodied fossil depletion and human toxicity for building materials (PDF) Data for Supporting Information (XLSX) Annual constructed building area at province level from 2000 to 2015 in China (XLSX) Production inventory for analyzed 10 building materials (XLSX)

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Beijia Huang: 0000-0002-8325-7447 Wei-Qiang Chen: 0000-0002-7686-2331 Niko Heeren: 0000-0003-4967-6557 Edgar G. Hertwich: 0000-0002-4934-3421 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research work of author B-J.H. is supported by grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.71403170). W.-Q.C. acknowledges financial support from the Frontier Science Research Project of Chinese Academy of Sciences (QYZDB-SSW-DQC012).

■

REFERENCES

(1) Augiseau, V.; Barles, S. Studying construction materials flows and stock: A review. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 123, 153−164. (2) UNEP. Buildings and Climate Change: Summary for Decision Makers; UNEP, 2009. (3) Othman, AAE. Sustainable Architecture: An Investigation into the Architect’s Social Responsibility. International Conference on Sustainable Human Settlements for Economic & Social Development 2007. (4) Porhincak, M.; Estokova, A. Comparative Analysis of Environmental Performance of Building Materials towards Sustainable Construction. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2013, 35, 1291−1296. (5) Chang, Y.; Huang, Z.; Ries, R. J.; Masanet, E. The embodied air pollutant emissions and water footprints of buildings in China: A quantification using disaggregated input-output life cycle inventory model. J. Cleaner Prod. 2016, 113, 274−284. (6) He, X.; Liu, Y.; Li, T.; Chen, J. Does the rapid development of China’s urban residential buildings matter for the environment? Build. Environ. 2013, 64, 130−137. (7) Huang, T.; Shi, F.; Tanikawa, H.; Fei, J.; Han, J. Materials demand and environmental impact of buildings construction and demolition in China based on dynamic material flow analysis. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 72, 91−101. (8) Zhang, H.; Li, L.; Chen, T.; Li, V. Where will China’s real estate market go under the economy’s new normal? Cities. 2016, 55, 42−48. (9) Roh, S.; Tae, S.; Suk, S. J.; Ford, G. Evaluating the embodied environmental impacts of major building tasks and materials of apartment buildings in Korea. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2017, 73, 135−144.

14012


Article

Environmental Science & Technology (10) Kapur, A.; Keoleian, G.; Kendall, A.; Kesler, S. E. Dynamic modeling of in-use cement stocks in the United States. J. Ind. Ecol. 2008, 12, 539−556. (11) Fishman, T.; Schandl, H.; Tanikawa, H.; Walker, P.; Krausmann, F. 2014. Accounting for the material stock of nations. J. Ind. Ecol. 2014, 18, 407−420. (12) Fishman, T.; Schandl, H.; Tanikawa, H. The socio-economic drivers of material stock accumulation in Japan’s prefectures. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 113, 76−84. (13) Tanikawa, H.; Fishman, T.; Okuoka, K.; Sugimoto, K. The weight of society over time and space: a comprehensive account of the construction material stock of Japan, 1945−2010. J. Ind. Ecol. 2015, 19, 778−791. (14) Heeren, N.; Hellweg, S. Tracking construction material over space and time: Prospective and geo-referenced modeling of building stocks and construction material flows. J. Ind. Ecol. 2018, DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12739. (15) Sandberg, N. H.; Sartori, I.; Vestrum, M. I.; Brattebø, H. Explaining the historical energy use in dwelling stocks with a segmented dynamic model: Case study of Norway 1960−2015. Energy Build. 2016, 132, 141−153. (16) Sandberg, N. H.; Brattebø, H. Analysis of energy and carbon flows in the future Norwegian dwelling stock. Build Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 123−139. (17) Hu, M. M.; Pauliuk, S.; Wang, T.; Huppes, G.; van der Voet, E.; Müller, D. B. Iron and Steel in Chinese Residential Buildings: A Dynamic Analysis. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54 (9), 591−600. (18) Cao, Z.; Shen, L.; Liu, L.; Zhao, J.; Zhong, S.; Kong, H.; Sun, Y. Estimating the in-Use Cement Stock in China: 1920−2013. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 122, 21−31. (19) Hong, T.; Ji, C.; Park, H. Integrated model for assessing the cost and CO2 emission (IMACC) for sustainable structural design in ready-mix concrete. J. Environ. Manage. 2012, 103, 1−8. (20) Cai, W.; Wan, L.; Jiang, Y.; Wang, C.; Lin, L. The Short-Lived Buildings in China: Impacts on Water, Energy and Carbon Emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49 (24), 13921. (21) Hong, T.; Ji, C.; Jang, M.; Park, H. Assessment model for energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions during the construction phase. J. Manage. Eng. 2014, 30, 226−235. (22) Ng, S. T.; Chen, Y.; Wong, J. M. W. Variability of building environmental assessment tools on evaluating carbon emissions. Environ. Impact Assess 2013, 38, 131−141. (23) Song, J. S.; Lee, K. M. Development of a low-carbon product design system based on embedded GHG emissions. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 547−56. (24) Eštoková, A.; Porhinčaḱ , M. Reduction of primary energy and CO2 emissions through selection and environmental evaluation of building materials. Theor. Found. Chem. Eng. 2012, 46, 704−712. (25) Jang, M.; Hong, T.; Ji, C. Hybrid LCA model for assessing the embodied environmental impacts of buildings in South Korea. Environ. Impact Assess 2015, 50, 143−155. (26) Chang, Y.; Ries, R. J.; Wang, Y. Life-cycle energy of residential buildings in china. Energy Policy 2013, 62, 656−664. (27) Lee, K.; Tae, S.; Shin, S. Development of a life cycle assessment program for building (SUSB-LCA) in South Korea. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 1994−2002. (28) Li, X.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, Z. An LCA-based environmental impact assessment model for construction processes. Build Environ. 2010, 45, 766−775. (29) Ü rge-Vorsatz, D.; Eyre, N.; Graham, P.; Harvey, D.; Hertwich, E. G.; Kornevall, C.; Majumdar, M.; McMahon, J.; Mirasgedis, S.; Murakami, S.; Novikova, A.; Jiang, Y. Energy End-Use: Buildings. In Global Energy Assessment, IIASA, Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2012. (30) Smith, K. R.; Balakrishnan, K.; Butler, C.; Chafe, Z.; Fairlie, I.; Kinney, P.; Kjellstrom, T.; Mauzerall, D. L.; McKone, T.; McMichael, A.; Schneider, M. Energy and Health. In Global Energy Assessment, IIASA, Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2012.

(31) Dahlstrom, O.; Sornes, K.; Eriksen, S. T.; Hertwich, E. G. Life cycle assessment of a single-family residence built to either conventional or passive house standard. Energy Build. 2012, 54, 470−479. (32) Wang, J.; Zhang, X.; Huang, Z. Life cycle assessment energy consumption and pollutant emission inventory analysis of construction materials production. Res. Environ. Sci. 2007, 20, 149−153 (in Chinese) . (33) Thormark, C. The effect of materials choice on the total energy need and recycling potential of a building. Build. Environ. 2006, 41, 1019−1026. (34) Bribián, I. Z.; Capilla, A. V.; Usón, A. A. Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Build. Environ. 2011, 46 (5), 1133−1140. (35) Heeren, N.; Mutel, C. L.; Steubing, B.; Ostermeyer, Y.; Wallbaum, H.; Hellweg, S. Environmental Impact of BuildingsWhat Matters? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49 (16), 9832−9841. (36) NBSC (National Bureau of Statistics of China). China Statistical Yearbook on Construction; China Statistics Press: Beijing, 2001−2016 (in Chinese). (37) Hong, L.; Zhou, N.; Feng, W.; Khanna, N.; Fridley, D.; Zhao, Y.; Sandholt, K. Building stock dynamics and its impacts on materials and energy demand in China. Energy Policy 2016, 94, 47−55. (38) Huang, C.; Han, J.; Chen, W. Q. Changing patterns and determinants of infrastructures’ material stocks in Chinese cities. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 123, 47−53. (39) DICS (Department of Investment and Construction); NBS (National Bureau of Statistics). China Statistical Yearbook on Construction; China Statistics Press, Beijing, 2001−2016 (in Chinese). (40) Zhao, P.; Gong, X. Z.; Lin, B.; Jiang, Q. Green Building Materials Evaluation and Material Selection Technology System; China Building Materials Press: Beijing, 2014 (in Chinese). (41) Huijbregts, M. A. J.; Steinmann, Z. J. N.; Elshout, P. M. F.; Stam, G.; Verones, F.; Vieira, M. D. M.; Hollander, A.; Van Zelm, R. ReCiPe2016: A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. RIVM Report 2016−0104. Bilthoven, The Netherlands. (42) Strauss, K.; Brent, A.; Hietkamp, S. Characterisation and Normalisation Factors for Life Cycle Impact Assessment Mined Abiotic Resources Categories in South Africa: The manufacturing of catalytic converter exhaust systems as a case study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 162−171. (43) Bueno, C.; Hauschild, M. Z.; Rossignolo, J. A.; Ometto, A. R.; Mendes, N. C. Sensitivity analysis of the use of Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods: a case study on building materials. J. Cleaner Prod. 2016, 112, 2208−2220. (44) LCA ReCiPe midpoint normalization. http://sites.google.com/ site/lciarecipe/normalisation. Accessed on March 28, 2018. (45) Guinee, J. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment; Springer Science and Business Media, 2002. (46) Feng, L.; Lu, J. The Development of Real Estate Land Market and the Impact Factors of Residential Land Prices in China since 2004. China Land Sciences 2013, 27, 29−35 (in Chinese) . (47) ZhongShan Realty Research Center. Zhongshan, Guangdong Real estate market research report; Key Success, 2011 (in Chinese). (48) Huijbregts, M A J.; Thissen, U.; Guinee, J. B.; Jager, T.; Kalf, D.; van de Meent, D.; Ragas, A. M.; Sleeswijk, A. W.; Reijnders, L. Chemosphere Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part I: calculation of toxicity potentials for 181 substances with the nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model USESLCA. Chemosphere 2000, 41, 541−573. (49) Guo, B.; Geng, Y.; Dong, H.; Liu, Y. Energy-related greenhouse gas emission features in China’s energy supply region: the case of Xinjiang. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2016, 54 (2047), 15−24. (50) You, P.; Hu, D.; Zhang, H.; Guo, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, B.; Yuan, Y. Carbon emissions in the system in China-a case study of residential life cycle of urban building system in China-a case study of residential buildings. Ecol Complex. 2011, 8 (2), 201−212. 14013


Article

Environmental Science & Technology (51) Dodoo, A.; Gustavsson, L.; Sathre, R. Carbon implications of end-of-life management of building materials. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 53 (5), 276−286. (52) Per-capita living space in Guangdong Province. http://www. jiwu.com/news/2538880.html. Accessed on Oct 10, 2018. (53) Shan, Y. L.; Guan, D. B.; Zheng, H. R.; Ou, J. M.; Li, Y.; Meng, J.; Mi, Z. F.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, Q. Data Descriptor: China CO2 emission accounts 1997−2015. Sci. Data 2018, 5, 170201. (54) Sartori, I.; Sandberg, N. H.; Brattebø, H. Dynamic Building Stock Modelling: General Algorithm and exemplification for Norway. Energy Build. 2016, 132, 13−25. (55) Yücel, G. Extent of inertia caused by the existing building stock against an energy transition in the Netherlands. Energy Build. 2013, 56, 134−145. (56) Tanikawa, H.; Fishman, T.; Okuoka, K.; Sugimoto, K. The Weight of Society Over Time and Space: A Comprehensive Account of the Construction Material Stock of Japan, 1945−2010. J. Ind. Ecol. 2015, 19, 778−791. (57) Instruction for promoting green building material standard, certification and labeling http://www.miit.gov.cn/n1146285/ n1146352/n3054355/n3057569/n3057573/c5995621/content. html.Accessed on Oct 15, 2018. (58) Guggemos, A. A.; Horvath, A. Strategies of Extended Producer Responsibility for Buildings. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 2003, 9 (2), 65. (59) Khasreen, M. M.; Banfill, P. F. G.; Menzies, G. F. Life-Cycle Assessment and the Environmental Impact of Buildings: A Review. Sustainability 2009, 1 (3), 534−544. (60) Chau, C. K.; Leung, T. M.; Ng, W. Y. A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings. Appl. Energy 2015, 143 (1), 395− 413. (61) Huberman, N.; Pearlmutter, D. A life-cycle energy analysis of building materials in the Negev desert. Energy and Buildings. 2008, 40, 837−848. (62) Berkelmans, L.; Wang, H. Chinese Urban Residential Construction to 2040. 2012, Reserve Bank of Australia. (63) Yu, H.; Li, G. J. Construction Project Investment Estimation Handbook; China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, 1999 (in Chinese). (64) Chang, Y.; Ries, R. J.; Man, Q.; Wang, Y. Disaggregated I-O LCA model for building product chain energy quantification: a case from China. Energy Build. 2014, 72, 212−221. (65) Shi, F.; Huang, T.; Tanikawa, T.; Han, J.; Hashimoto, S.; Moriguchi, Y. Toward a Low Carbon-Dematerialization Society Measuring the Materials Demand and CO2 Emissions of Building and Transport Infrastructure Construction in China. J. Ind. Ecol. 2012, 16 (4), 493−505. (66) Wang, T.; Tian, X.; Hashimoto, S.; Tanikawa, H. Concrete Transformation of Buildings in China and Implications for the Steel Cycle. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 103, 205−215. (67) Hertwich, E.; Heeren, N.; Kuczenski, B.; Majeau-Bettez, G.; Myers, R.; Pauliuk, S.; Stadler, K.; Lifset, R. Nullius in Verba: Advancing Data Transparency in Industrial Ecology. J. Ind. Ecol. 2018, 22 (1), 6−17. (68) Chen, W. Q.; Graedel, T. E. Improved alternatives for estimating in-use material stocks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 3048−3055. (69) Baynes, T. M.; Muller, D. B. A Socio-economic Metabolism Approach to Sustainable Development and Climate Change Mitigation. Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology;Springer, Cham, 2016. (70) Lin, C.; Liu, G.; Muller, D. B. Characterizing the role of built environment stocks in human development and emission growth. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 123, 67−72. (71) Seto, K. C.; Guneralp, B.; Hutyra, L. R. Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2012, 109 (40), 16083− 16088.

14014


Building Material Use and Associated Environmental Impacts in China

Recommend Documents