Construction Materials Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/coma.12.00037
Future use of life-cycle assessment in civil Paper 1200037
Received 04/09/2012 Accepted 04/01/2013
engineering Keywords: buildings, structures & design/environment/
Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com
Glass, Dyer, Georgopoulos et al. sustainability

ice Author copyICE for

proceedings personal use, not for distribution
| Publishing: All rights reserved

Future use of life-cycle assessment in

civil engineering
&
1 Jacqueline Glass BA, DipArch, DipBRS, CertHE, PhD &
5 Kevin Paine BEng, PhD
Professor of Architecture and Sustainable Construction, School of Civil Senior Lecturer, Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of Bath, Bath, UK
and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
&
6 Tony Parry MCIHT, PhD
&
2 Tom Dyer MSc, PhD Associate Professor, Nottingham Transportation Engineering Centre,
Lecturer, Concrete Technology Unit, Division of Civil Engineering, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
&
7 Henrikke Baumann MSc, PhD
&
3 Costas Georgopoulos MEng, MIGreekE, MSc, CEng, FHEA, Associate Professor Energy and Environment Department, Chalmers
FIStructE, FICE, FCS University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Kingston University, Kingston on
Thames, Surrey, UK &
8 Pernilla Gluch MSc, PhD
Associate Professor in Construction Management, Civil and
&
4 Chris Goodier BEng, PhD, PGCert, MCIOB, MICT, FHEA Environmental Engineering Department, Chalmers University of
Senior Lecturer in Materials and Structures, School of Civil and Building
Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8

A LimesNet mission to Chalmers University of Technology, in Sweden, is reported in this paper. The aim of the mission
was to explore new ways of exploiting the untapped potential of life-cycle assessment, its application in the civil
engineering and construction industries and, specifically, to debate the associated trade-off decisions for reinforced
concrete structures (buildings and civil engineering). Life-cycle assessment is an important tool in sustainable design;
engineers need robust life-cycle assessment data and must balance this with operational performance considerations
(e.g. energy consumption, durability). Through the mission it was clear that much could be learned from the Swedish
experience. The UK team noted the importance of life-cycle assessment studies which allow building performance and
construction products to be benchmarked and the role of emerging European standards (e.g. product category rules
for construction and the development of environmental product declarations). Valuable lessons exist for consulting
engineers and materials manufacturers, and there is a need for the greater inclusion of life-cycle assessment skills in
the civil engineering education curriculum.

1. Introduction: about the mission and solutions in order to help deliver a more sustainable built
LimesNet (the network for low-impact materials and innovative environment. The aim of the LimesNet mission described in this
engineering solutions for the built environment, an Engineering paper was to convene a UK–Sweden workshop to explore new
and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)-funded ways of tackling the problem of life-cycle assessment (LCA) and
project, EP/J004219/1) aimed to create an international multi- associated trade-off decisions for concrete structures in building
disciplinary community who share a common vision for the and civil engineering. The UK-based authors visited Chalmers
development and adoption of innovative low-impact materials University of Technology, in Goteborg, Sweden on 22–23

1
Construction Materials Future use of life-cycle
assessment in civil engineering
Glass, Dyer, Georgopoulos et al.

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

March 2012, where their visit was hosted by Dr Pernilla Gluch lives (DTI, 2001; Fairclough, 2002; Foresight, 2008; Goodier
from the civil and environmental engineering department and et al., 2007). The industry is often perceived as lagging behind in
Dr Henrikke Baumann (Baumann and Tillman, 2004), from the adopting novel technologies, materials, practices and processes
energy and environment department. The university has been a (Egan, 1998; Foresight, 2008; Goodier and Pan, 2010), yet
leader in the area of LCA since 1990 and hosts the Swedish Life- designers are prevented from taking advantage of novel
Cycle Centre (see http://lifecyclecenter.se/); it has worked with solutions (e.g. those with lower environmental impacts) because
major global companies such as ABB, Skanska and Volvo, and when these are developed, their journey into the marketplace
undertaken specific studies on packaging, pulp and paper, and into specifications is slow and often tortuous. In contrast,
timber and construction materials. Although the focus was on conventional materials, codes and standards are based, in many
LCA, a combination of presentations and discussions enabled cases, on more than 100 years of use and experience, such that
the mission team and the host researchers to debate a wide range there is confidence in their general behaviour. This principle
of related subjects, including conceptual design of sustainable remains true for innovation in respect of sustainability; while
buildings using concrete, using non-Portland cements in there may be a strong ethos to innovate to minimise environ-
concrete construction, measuring raw material sustainability, mental impacts, there may be a range of practical, regulatory or
product assessment and environmental product declarations cultural challenges to doing so.
(EPDs), responsible sourcing of construction products, long-
term strategic planning and maintenance of UK infrastructure Requirements to minimise the carbon footprint of projects are
and carbon footprinting for road pavements. By the end of the increasingly recognised by some infrastructure clients. For
mission it was clear that much could be learned from the example, the Environment Agency has committed to reduce
Swedish LCA experts and there was significant opportunity for carbon in everything it does, and share experiences with others
further collaboration to exchange knowledge and discuss (EA, 2010). An analysis of capital flood risk management
developments in the UK. The UK team noted the importance schemes undertaken by the Environment Agency has shown
of multi-company LCA studies that allow companies or that 25% of the carbon footprint associated with construction
products to be benchmarked and also raised the topical work work relates to the use of concrete and more specifically
of CEN TC/350, such as ISO 15804 (Product category rules for Portland cement (Mason et al., 2011). Relative to its other
construction (BSI, 2012)) and the development of EPDs (BSI, ingredients, Portland cement (CEM I) has a high embodied
2010b, 2011b), discussed in detail in this paper. There was also a environmental impact. There are two main environmental
debate around assumptions used in LCA and how to predict the impacts associated with CEM I: depletion of abiotic resources
availability of materials in the future. This culminated in an – limestone, clay and other resources extracted for use as raw
interesting link being made between research on various scoring feed (Huntzinger and Eatmon, 2009); and carbon dioxide
methods for the amount of natural resources in the world emissions from burning fuels in the rotary kiln and thermal
(Harrison et al., 2011) and the use of futures methods in the decomposition of lime (Cembureau, 2006). Used with CEM I,
construction industry (Goodier et al., 2010) – such methods materials such as fly ash and ground granulated blast-furnace
could be harnessed as part of a novel LCA methodology. A slag (GGBS) can help, but there are also opportunities to
common theme was the apparent gap in the development of reduce environmental impacts in other phases of the life cycle
engineers’ and construction professionals’ skills in using LCA; it of a structure.
was felt that LCA was generally not included in the civil
engineering curriculum in the UK. This is a genuine opportunity In 2011, the Environment Agency commissioned work to
for civil engineering: LCA need not be the sole domain of assess the embodied carbon dioxide (eCO2) of concrete used in
environmental/energy specialists. There is a need to embed LCA flood risk management infrastructure, with a view to assessing
in the curriculum such that the engineers of tomorrow are aware whether there was an opportunity to use alternative solutions
and prepared to use its results within the design process. Indeed, and/or radical or novel materials to reduce the carbon
with civil engineers designing and building infrastructure with footprint (Mason et al., 2011). A balanced assessment of
design lives of 30, 100 or even 150 years, it is imperative that they durability for novel concretes (that use primarily non-Portland
at least possess a basic understanding of LCA principles, if not cement binders to reduce carbon emissions) proved too
the skills to apply them directly. difficult to address, so the eCO2 of concrete was taken as the
carbon dioxide emissions associated with production, manu-
2. An industry in transition facture, transport and installation of the material (i.e. the eCO2
Construction and civil engineering as an industry creates high- at the point of use). The main source of data was the
profile structures, critical infrastructure and transport systems, Environment Agency’s construction carbon calculator (EA-
yet has frequently been berated for its lack of forward thinking CCC), an Excel spreadsheet-based tool that gives a list of
and poor performance, commercially, and for projects in which tCO2/t for typical activities and materials used (EA, 2011). This
performance has been incommensurate with intended service was complemented by data for the eCO2 of the main

2
Construction Materials Future use of life-cycle
assessment in civil engineering
Glass, Dyer, Georgopoulos et al.

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

constituents of concrete as given in the University of Bath’s pavement construction, specifically in terms of the sensi-
inventory of carbon and energy (Hammond and Jones, 2011). tivity of different assumptions within the methodology)
Because the carbon dioxide produced during the maintenance & building structures (e.g. Ochsendorf et al. (2011) in which
and demolition of the structure could not be considered, it an LCA is developed for concrete and timber residential
remains difficult, because of the long design life required, for properties in different areas of the USA to explore the
industry to assess and use radical or novel materials which are relationship between embodied and operational energy of
untried. These considerations are particularly pertinent in these typical construction approaches)
critical design cases, such as flood risk management, where & construction products (e.g. Gäbel and Tillman (2005),
failure could be life threatening. There remains, therefore, a which covers environmental impacts in cement produc-
tension between the need for confidence in materials (Hewlett, tion, but many LCA studies have also been published by
2011) and the need for more sustainable construction, with a individual material suppliers/manufacturers).
radically lower impact (as well as a significantly lower carbon
footprint, to comply with legally binding carbon targets). However, LCA studies can sometimes be influenced by vested
interest, incomplete life cycles, and a lack of rigour and
This is likely to be amplified when other aspects of the full life disclosure of methodological choices; there are anecdotal
cycle are considered (e.g. in building structures where opera- reports of some LCA reports being suppressed because the
tional (in-use) aspects are more significant than those of results were somewhat unexpected. Importantly, methodologi-
production). Indeed, research on embodied and operational cal choices depend on the purpose of the study, but people may
carbon dioxide emissions of timber and masonry houses (Arup, not agree on the purpose of a study and the objectives and
2006) has concluded that the difference in eCO2 for timber assumptions may not always be well explained. As a result, there
frame and concrete masonry construction is 4% for a typical can be a lack of transparency in and comparability between
house, which can be offset in 11 years when thermal mass is LCA results. The ISO standards do not prescribe methodolo-
exploited; whole life carbon dioxide emissions for concrete gical choices, so that individual studies may adopt those most
masonry construction are significantly lower than timber, appropriate to their domain. This leaves the challenge for any
ranging from 7% to 17% when thermal mass is exploited. industry or material sector to agree and adopt one or more sets
of standard approaches (Santero et al., 2011b) in order to
provide transparent and comparable LCA results. This is
These examples show that assessment of the environmental
necessary, both to promote the science of LCA in the domain,
impacts of materials in the civil engineering context is complex,
but also to provide designers, who are not usually LCA experts,
but it is important to be able to broaden out beyond key
with the information necessary to estimate the environmental
indicators (such as carbon and waste) to include climate change,
impacts of design choices. Hence, there is little discussion and no
ozone depletion, acidification of land and water, eutrophication,
agreement between practitioners on the effects of different LCA
material depletion and waste production. These are all typically
methods (e.g. inventory, definitions of use phase, allocation to
included in LCA studies, as discussed next.
by-products or end-of-life scenarios).

3. The status of LCA The use of LCA results by practising engineers is currently very
Life-cycle assessment is ‘the process of evaluating the effects limited and previous studies have identified a strong need to
that a product has on the environment over the entire period of include LCA education (among other things) in engineering
its life cycle…extraction and processing; manufacture; trans- curricula to prepare students for sustainability challenges and
port and distribution; use, re-use and maintenance; recycling transition (e.g. Allenby, 2007; Dwyer and Byrne, 2010;
and final disposal’ (UNEP, 1996). It is used to inform decisions Gutierrez-Martin and Hüttenhain, 2003). Recent UK guidance
on material selection to better understand, measure and reduce on the embodied impacts of construction products is helpful
environmental impacts, hence it is sometimes referred to as (Anderson and Thornback, 2012) and in education, the
environmental LCA. LCA procedures are harmonised in university of Dundee includes a full module on LCA in its
ISO14040:2010 and ISO14044:2010 (BSI, 2006a, 2006b), and masters programme for civil engineering; the students appear
a growing number of published LCA studies now exists in the to adapt well to the systematic nature of LCA. However, these
civil and structural engineering domain. Although not an initiatives on their own are not sufficient to meet the full needs
exhaustive list, such studies include of the design and asset management community.

& studies of civil engineering infrastructure (e.g. Santero et al. An intervention could be made at policy level, underpinned by
(2011a), focusing on a comparison of concrete and asphalt government organisations such as the Technology Strategy
pavement for highway construction; Huang et al. (2012), Board, whose resource efficiency strategy aim states: ‘we
which explores the challenges around undertaking LCA for believe the UK should support the wider adoption of life-cycle

3
Construction Materials Future use of life-cycle
assessment in civil engineering
Glass, Dyer, Georgopoulos et al.

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

thinking through the use of indicators and quantitative resources and undertaking projects would surely also take social
methods, such as life-cycle assessment, embedded carbon and and societal factors into account (such as labour rights,
embedded water’ (Technology Strategy Board, 2009, p. 33). community impact and engagement), hence addressing issues of
Recent research has also concluded that public databases of social responsibility (BSI, 2010a). Efforts have been made in the
LCA studies, more research on life-cycle costing of environ- LCA community to include social and economic dimensions into
mental impacts (Ochsendorf et al., 2011), standardised frame- life-cycle modelling (e.g. Baumann et al., 2012; Gluch and
works for LCA (Santero et al., 2011b) and research to address Baumann, 2004; Steen, 2005), but the many dimensions of
the issue of complexity in LCA (Zamagni et al., 2012) are sustainability have yet to be merged into a coherent life-cycle
needed urgently. modelling framework (although the International Society for
Industrial Ecology has provided a platform for exchange and
4. Counting materials in LCA meetings on life-cycle sustainability assessment since 2011, see
Resource efficiency is an example of the crucial components of http://www.is4ie.org/).
sustainable development and strategic priorities for policy and
research (European Commission, 2011; UK government, 2011; Currently, Skaar and Fet (2011) contend that integrated
WRAP, 2010). Consequently, when measuring the environ- reporting of economic, social and environmental aspects exists
mental impact of a project, the use of raw materials is an only at the level of ‘the corporation’, calling for methods that
essential part of this; but it is also often a sector-specific include both the extended supply chain and the product life
challenge. Consumption of raw materials forms part of the cycle. One pathway is provided by BS 8905 (BSI, 2011a), which
environmental impact of a civil engineering project, for which provides a framework for the sustainable use of materials (by
‘total material requirement’ (TMR) and ‘abiotic depletion including a range of parameters, alongside LCA-type data).
potential’ (ADP) are the current favoured approaches in There are fundamental problems in introducing such an
measurement terms. TMR is a measure of the total mass of raw approach in construction, however, such as the industry’s
materials required to produce the finished product (BRE, piecemeal understanding of the social and ethical dimensions
2007). Although the data required for calculation are usually of business (Murray and Dainty, 2009), differences in project
readily available, TMR is compromised by its inability to participants’ values towards sustainability (Fellows and Liu,
distinguish between scarce and abundant material (any 2008) and the widely acknowledged complexity of assessing
measure of resource efficiency should ideally take into account sustainability performance more holistically (Cole, 1998, 1999;
the proximity to exhaustion of a given resource), whereas ADP Haapio and Viitaniemi, 2008). This discussion relates closely to
achieves this by incorporating terms for the reserve base and the emergent subject of ‘responsible sourcing’ (Glass, 2011).
rate of extraction of a given resource within it (Adriaanse et al., Although there is no single definition for responsible sourcing,
1997; Van Oers et al., 2002). However, more detailed analysis it refers to a standardised approach to the management of
of ADP indicates that scarcity is not well represented by the sustainability issues associated with materials in the construc-
indicator – the emphasis is placed on the size of the reserve tion supply chain, usually as a means to procure materials with
base, which is not a good measure of scarcity because it a certified provenance (BRE, 2009; BSI, 2009). Glass et al.
overlooks factors such as accessibility. Harrison et al. (2011) (2012) note that this is a complex issue, which requires the
have developed an indicator as an attempt to better reflect involvement of manufacturers, clients, contractors and
resource scarcity, the ‘current scarcity score’ (CSS). Along with designers, but they argue that such an approach provides the
abiotic resources, which are normally represented by such social, ethical and moral narrative that LCA arguably omits.
metrics, the indicator incorporates biotic resources, water use
and the findings of the EU raw materials initiative (RMI) (Raw 5. Embedding LCA in established
Materials Supply Group, 2010). Yet this indicator finds itself assessment schemes
excluded from LCA applications conducted in accordance with In the UK, the BRE’s ‘Ecopoint’ system (Dickie and Howard,
ISO 14044 (BSI, 2006), owing to its use of weighting factors 2000; Howard et al., 1999) utilises an LCA approach similar to
and debate on whether sufficient data are available to permit that required for EPDs. In this example, credits are awarded in
biotic resources to be incorporated in a meaningful way. The BREEAM (the Building Research Establishment environmental
challenge of developing a version that is wholly compatible is assessment method), based on the Green Guide to Specification
therefore an attractive one. (Anderson et al., 2009), for a number of building elements (such
as external and internal walls, roof, upper floor slabs). The
Nevertheless, if it is accepted that, despite some clear short- Ecopoint system is not 100% compliant with ISO 14040 (BSI,
comings that need to be tackled, LCA is a robust tool and, 2006a); it is based on a single, weighted point score and
therefore, potentially helpful in civil engineering and construction ‘Ecopoint’ values for individual materials are not publicised. As
decision making, then there is still a problem with scope – LCA a result, the scheme’s value for design development is somewhat
only considers environmental issues. The true ‘cost’ of winning limited at this time. Other rating schemes such as ‘Leadership in

4
Construction Materials Future use of life-cycle
assessment in civil engineering
Glass, Dyer, Georgopoulos et al.

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

energy and environmental design’ (Leed) that do not currently social or any other) impacts to be presented in a consistent
have LCA credits are in the process of developing them (see manner (BSI, 2011b). It does account for the relative scarcity of a
http://www.leeduser.com/credit/Pilot-Credits/PC1). In the forth- material, but so-called after-life attributes such as recyclability
coming version of ‘Ceequal’, the civil engineering environmental and recarbonation are not permissible and the re-allocation of
assessment awards scheme (see www.ceequal.com), there will be impacts onto low-value by-products such as fly ash or scrap is
two mandatory questions on LCA, but teams are also asked not allowed. That said, Strazza et al. (2010) suggest there is
about LCA in the context of the contribution of the project growing interest in product (manufacturer)-specific EPDs and
towards the achievement of a more sustainable society. This also product (generic)-type EPDs, citing the example of generic
update to Ceequal provides a strong indication that expectations EPD development in the Italian cement sector. They also
are set to change in sustainability terms, not least because acknowledge that evaluation of a building product such as
requirements to minimise environmental footprint are increas- cement without account of its full life cycle would be ‘nonsense’,
ingly recognised by clients and asset owners. and in so doing recognise that a trans-business or trans-sector
approach is critical to producing an EPD that truly represents a
The main challenge of embedding LCA in green building rating product’s application space.
schemes is to develop the methodology and benchmarks
needed to embed LCA effectively and legitimately in such 6. Future prospects
schemes (Ove Arup, 2012), but the use of LCA is in fact much So, where does this leave us? Even if LCA data, plus
more diverse than scheme-related LCA. Although the schemes accompanying user tools and the skills to apply them, were
are important, the use of LCA for strategic learning in industry available, there is a problem of forecasting what characteristics
and for research should not be forgotten. One study on the future might actually hold for any given project. An
corporate use of LCA has shown that it was used mainly for understanding and appreciation of the future should arguably
organisational learning (Baumann, 1998; Frankl and Rubik, be a fundamental requirement in this sector because the civil
2000), such as identification of organisational location for engineering supply chain designs, builds and increasingly
environmental risks or development of new, in-house eco- manages and operates civil infrastructure and structures that
design rules. Despite these advantages, for both practical and will be used over many decades, with the design life of major
historical reasons, expertise in LCA often remains concen- infrastructure often being 100 or even 150 years. The civil
trated within disciplines that generally lie outside the civil engineering community needs to expand its planning horizons to
engineering community. Most LCA studies are carried out by prepare for potential future events, trends and operating
expert practitioners using dedicated software packages (such as environments (Foresight, 2008; Goodier and Pan, 2010; Harty
SimaPro or Pems), so it is a specialist field within environ- et al., 2007), yet construction companies appear reluctant to
mental systems analysis. Moreover, professionals, as well as engage in planning beyond a few years, or past the next project,
lay-people, can struggle to understand and interpret LCA and there is little evidence of a formal process in the formulation
output information (Steen et al., 2008), which is increasingly of long-term strategies. (Basic strategic planning is conducted,
being published by way of EPDs (BSI, 2010b, 2011b). EPDs but the process relies on SWOT (strengths, weaknesses,
are governed by product category rules (PCR), a ‘set of specific opportunities and threats) or PESTEL (political, economic,
rules, requirements and guidelines’ for developing EPDs for a social, technological, environmental and legal)/Steep type
particular product or group of products (BRE, 2007) to ensure analyses (Betts and Ofori, 1992; Brightman et al., 1999;
completeness, consistency and comparability, yet the prolifera- Goodier et al., 2010; Price, 2003) and focuses more on company
tion of PCRs that go beyond the strict remit of EPDs has business or market strategy rather than structure or infrastruc-
caused problems; programme operators around the world use ture.) Some examples exist, in the form of future scenarios for a
different approaches, and so outputs are not comparable place, a technology or a sector (e.g. Foresight, 2006; Goodier and
(Schminke and Grahl, 2007). With more than 40 000 commod- Pan, 2010), but are rarely used to inform company or design
ity categories, there is a need to maintain a high level of strategy. This contrasts with other sectors that routinely use
transparency and collaboration, transcend geographical stan- scenario planning and other future techniques to help shape their
dards-making, encourage greater stakeholder involvement and, long-range planning (Eden and Ackermann, 1998; Hiemstra,
importantly, avoid the development of conflicting PCRs 2006). The marked reluctance in construction to plan for the long
(Ingwersen and Stevenson, 2012). Consensus-built frameworks term is said to be due to the relative volatility of the market and a
can help promote the science of LCA and provide designers, perceived lack of control over factors external to the organisation
who are not usually LCA experts, with information to estimate (Goodier et al., 2010), but this is stifling the development of
the environmental impacts of design choices, with the caveat that future-focused design and construction approaches.
users may still not ‘make the effort’ to interpret it (Steen et al.,
2008). To help address this, the new PCR for construction (BSI, There is much to gain, however; Kaethner and Burridge (2012)
2012) requires information on typical environmental (but not suggest that, on a typically sized non-domestic building,

5
Construction Materials Future use of life-cycle
assessment in civil engineering
Glass, Dyer, Georgopoulos et al.

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

through careful specification, a structural engineer could save making, so there is currently a skills and knowledge gap. The
their lifetime’s personal carbon footprint. Yet a cultural change LimesNet mission found that Chalmers University of
to embed and enact this idea in everyday practice can take Technology in Sweden had
time. In Sweden, a regular survey of the construction industry’s
environmental attitudes and practices has shown that it takes & a systematic approach to the education of all engineers on
at least 10 years for companies to go from awareness about LCA techniques, regardless of discipline background
sustainability issues to having an array of sustainability & a close interaction with industry to commission LCA
practices implemented in their business (Thuvander et al., studies and industry deployed the results directly into the
2011). The survey noted that evidence of life-cycle thinking is production environment
found mainly in materials databases, procurement procedures & a strengthening research community around LCA and life-
and as a decision-making parameter for source separation and cycle management.
other waste management practices.
The UK authors of this paper intend to pursue a number of
One particular opportunity, pertaining to sustainability, is to novel research and educational trajectories that have emerged
combine the science of futures-based research with quantitative from this mission, including ideas for developments within
analysis mechanisms within LCA to explore possible futures in metrics, tools, implementation and education associated with
a more numerical way, which might work more effectively than LCA.
purely qualitative approaches. Certainly there is scope for
new models and tools in this area. It is pertinent that the
Acknowledgements
aforementioned study for the Environment Agency (Mason
The authors would like to thank the Engineering and Physical
et al., 2011) attempted to provide infrastructure engineers with
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the University of Bath
data on cements, precast concrete, cladding, local aggregates
(which led the LimesNet project for EPSRC), for supporting the
and reinforcement steel. They concentrated on limiting cradle-
‘Responsible Choices’ international mission to Sweden. The
to-gate effects, but end-of-life issues and a balanced assessment
UK-based authors would like to thank Dr Baumann and Dr
of durability proved too difficult to address (despite its obvious
Gluch for hosting the international mission and giving so
importance), so there is another interesting opportunity there,
generously of their time, expertise and enthusiasm.
notwithstanding underlying concerns about the veracity of the
concept of future forecasting, as noted by authors such as
Gardner (2010). Alternatively, Trinius and Sjostrom (2007) REFERENCES
propose a modular approach to understand environmental Adriaanse A, Bringezu S, Hammond A et al. (1997) Resource
issues through the life cycle of a product or building, based on Flows: The Material Basis of Industrial Economies. World
the developing international standards in the area. They Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
contend that such standards need to be integrated into business Allenby B (2007) Sustainable engineering education: translating
models that are applied in the sector and call for more myth to mechanism. Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE
meaningful use of quantifiable data, for example within EPDs. International Symposium on Electronics and the
However, 5 years after their paper was published, very few Environment, pp. 52–56, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISEE.
EPDs exist for construction materials and sectors have only 2007.369366.
recently begun to mobilise themselves to address this funda- Anderson J and Thornback J (2012) A Guide to Understanding
mental gap. Furthermore, Zamagni et al. (2012) acknowledge the Embodied Impacts of Construction Materials.
the tension between the need for greater fidelity and the need Construction Products Association, London, UK.
for better usability of LCA; they suggest that knowledge needs Anderson J, Shiers D and Steele K (2009) The Green Guide to
to be made available with ‘tolerable uncertainty’. Specification, an Environmental Profiling System for
Building Materials and Components. Building Research
7. Conclusion Establishment (BRE), Watford, UK.
There is clearly a set of challenges currently constraining the Arup (2006) Whole Life Performance Research: a Lifecycle
development and application of LCA in civil engineering Analysis of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Housing under
projects and practices. The result is that engineers’ ability to Climate Change Examining the Role of Thermal Mass. Arup
create low-impact buildings and sustainable infrastructure is Research and Development, London, UK.
being hindered. LCA is an important tool in sustainable Baumann B (1998) Life Cycle Assessment and Decision Making:
design; engineers need robust LCA data and hence need to Theories and Practices. PhD dissertation, Chalmers
balance this with other performance considerations. However, University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.
most UK civil engineering and construction courses do not Baumann H and Tillman A-M (2004) The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to
prepare engineers to interpret/employ LCA within decision LCA: an Orientation in Life Cycle Assessment Methodology

6
Construction Materials Future use of life-cycle
assessment in civil engineering
Glass, Dyer, Georgopoulos et al.

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

and Applications. Studentlitteratur AB, Chalmers clarifying intentions. Building Research and Information
University, Göteborg, Sweden. 27(4-5): 230–246.
Baumann H, Arvidsson R, Tong H and Wang Y (2012) Does the Dickie I and Howard N (2000) BRE Digest 446 – Assessing
production of an airbag injure more people than the airbag Environmental Impacts of Construction. BRE, Watford,
saves in traffic? Opting for an empirically-based approach UK.
to S-LCA methodology. Journal of Industrial Ecology in DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) (2001) Constructing the
press. Future: Foresight Report. Built Environment and Transport
Betts M and Ofori G (1992) Strategic planning for competitive Panel, Construction Associate Programme, Department of
advantage in construction. Construction Management and Trade and Industry, London, UK.
Economics 10(6): 511–532. Dwyer B and Byrne EP (2010) Practical skills and techniques for
BRE (Building Research Establishment) (2007) Methodology for the transition to a sustainable future, a case study for
Environmental Profiles of Construction Products: Product engineering education. Proceedings of the 3rd International
Category Rules for Type III Environmental Product Symposium for Engineering Education ISEE2010,
Declaration of Construction Products (DRAFT). BRE, University College Cork, Ireland. See http://www.ucc.ie/
Watford, UK. academic/processeng/isee2010/index.htm (accessed 03/05/
BRE (2009) BES 6001: Issue 2.0 Framework Standard for the 2013).
Responsible Sourcing of Construction Products. BRE, EA (Environment Agency) (2010) Creating a Better Place 2010–
Watford, UK. 2015: Our Corporate Strategy. Environment Agency,
Brightman JR, Eden C, van der Heijden K and Langford DA (1999) London, UK. See http://publications.environment-agency.
The development of the construction alternative futures gov.uk/PDF/GEHO1109BQXE-E-E.pdf (accessed 25/08/
explorer. Automation in Construction 8(6): 613–623. 2012).
BSI (2006a) BS EN ISO 14040:2006: Environmental EA (2011) Carbon Calculator for Construction Activities.
management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and Environment Agency, London, UK. See http://www.
framework. BSI, London, UK. environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/
BSI (2006b) BS EN ISO 14044:2006: Environmental Carbon_calculator_v3_1_2.xls (accessed 25/08/2012).
management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and Eden C and Ackermann F (1998) Making Strategy: the Journey
guidelines. BSI, London, UK. of Strategic Management. SAGE Publications, London,
BSI (2009) BS 8902:2009: Responsible sourcing sector UK.
certification schemes for construction products – Egan J (1998) Rethinking Construction. HMSO, London, UK.
Specification. BSI, London, UK. European Commission (2011) Communication from the
BSI (2010a) BS ISO 26000: 2010: Guidance on social Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
responsibility. BSI, London, UK. European Economic and Social Committee and the
BSI (2010b) PD CEN/TR 15941:2010: Sustainability of Committee of the Regions: A Resource-efficient Europe –
construction works – Environmental product declarations Flagship Initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy. COM
– Methodology for selection and use of generic data. BSI, (2011) 21, Brussels, Belgium.
London, UK. Fairclough J (2002) Rethinking Construction Innovation and
BSI (2011a) BS 8905: 2011: Framework for the assessment of Research: A Review of Government R&D Policies and
the sustainable use of materials – guidance. BSI, London, Practices. Department of Transport, Local Government
UK. and the Regions, London, UK.
BSI (2011b) BS EN ISO 15942: 2011: Sustainability of Fellows R and Liu AMM (2008) Impact of participants values’ on
construction works – Environmental product declarations – construction sustainability. Proceedings of the Institution of
Communication format business-to-business. BSI, London, Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability 161(4): 219–227.
UK. Foresight (2006) Foresight: Intelligent Infrastructure Futures.
BSI (2012) BS EN ISO 15804: 2012: Sustainability of Office of Science and Technology, DTI, London, UK.
construction works – Environmental product declarations Foresight (2008) Sustainable Energy Management and the Built
– Product category rules. BSI, London, UK. Environment, Final Report. The Government Office for
Cembureau (2006) LCA Study Data. European Platform on Science, London, UK.
LCA, Brussels, Belgium. See http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ Frankl P and Rubik F (eds) (2000) Life Cycle Assessment in
lcainfohub/dataset2.vm?id5105 (accessed 25/08/2012). Industry and Business: Adoption Patterns, Applications and
Cole R (1998) Emerging trends in building environmental Implications. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
assessment methods. Building Research and Information Gäbel K and Tillman A-M (2005) Simulating operational
26(1): 3–16. alternatives for future cement production. Journal of
Cole R (1999) Building environmental assessment methods: Cleaner Production 13(13-14): 1246–1257.

7
Construction Materials Future use of life-cycle
assessment in civil engineering
Glass, Dyer, Georgopoulos et al.

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Gardner D (2010) Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Fail – Huntzinger DN and Eatmon TD (2009) Life-cycle assessment of
And Why We Believe Them Anyway. McClelland and Portland cement manufacturing: comparing the traditional
Stewart, Toronto, Canada. process with alternative technologies. Journal of Cleaner
Glass J (2011) Briefing: Responsible sourcing of construction Production 17(7): 668–675.
products. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Ingwersen WW and Stevenson M (2012) Can we compare the
Engineering Sustainability 164(3): 164–165. environmental performance of this product to that one? An
Glass J, Achour N, Parry T and Nicholson I (2012) Engaging update on the development of product category rules and
small firms in sustainable supply chains: responsible future challenges toward alignment. Journal of Cleaner
sourcing practices in the UK construction industry. Production 24(3): 102–108.
International Journal of Agile Systems and Management Kaethner SC and Burridge JA (2012) Embodied CO2 of
5(1): 29–58. structural frames. The Structural Engineer May: 33–40.
Gluch P and Baumann H (2004) The life cycle costing (LCC) Mason J, Paine KA and Rogers K (2011) Low Carbon Concrete:
approach: a conceptual discussion of its usefulness for Guidelines for Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Concrete
environmental decision-making. Building and Environment Used in Flood Risk Management Infrastructure. Black and
39(5): 571–580. Veatch Report to the Environment Agency, London, UK.
Goodier CI and Pan W (2010) The Future of UK Housebuilding. RICS, Murray M and Dainty ARJ (eds) (2009) Corporate Social
London, UK. See http://www.rics.org/Global/Downloads/ Responsibility in the Construction Industry. Taylor &
RICS_Research_The_Future_of_UK_Housebuilding.pdf Francis, Abingdon, UK.
(accessed 11/02/2013). Ochsendorf J, Norford LK, Brown D et al. (2011) Methods, Impacts
Goodier CI, Soetanto R, Dainty ARJ et al. (2007) A competitive and Opportunities in the Concrete Building Life-cycle.
future for UK construction? Construction Information Concrete Sustainability Hub, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Quarterly 9(4): 169–174. Ove Arup (2012) The Value of Structural Engineering to
Goodier CI, Austin SA, Soetanto R and Dainty ARJ (2010) Causal Sustainable Construction: Final Report. Ove Arup and
mapping and scenario building with multiple organisations. Partners, London, UK.
Futures: the Journal of Policy, Planning and Futures Studies Price ADF (2003) The strategy process within large construction
42(3): 219–229. organisations. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Gutierrez-Martin F and Hüttenhain SH (2003) Environmental Management 10(4): 283–296.
education: new paradigms and engineering syllabus. Raw Materials Supply Group (2010) Critical Raw Materials for
Journal of Cleaner Production 11(3): 247–251. the EU – Report of the Ad-Hoc Group on Defining Critical
Haapio A and Viitaniemi P (2008) A critical review of building Raw Materials. European Commission, Enterprise and
environmental assessment tools. Environmental Impact Industry, Brussels, Belgium. See http://ec.europa.eu/
Assessment Review 28(7): 469–482. enterprise/policies/raw-materials/documents (accessed 25/
Hammond G and Jones C (2011) Inventory of Carbon and Energy 08/2012).
(ICE) Version 2.0. University of Bath, Bath, UK. Santero N, Loijos A, Akbarian M and Ochsendorf J (2011a)
Harrison TA, Jones R, Dyer T and Halliday J (2011) Sustainable Methods, Impacts and Opportunities in the Concrete
Use of Natural Resource Project – Phase 2A Report, Pavement Life-Cycle. Concrete Sustainability Hub, MIT,
University of Dundee, Dundee, UK. See http://www.snr- Cambridge, MA, USA.
project.org (accessed 25/08/2012). Santero N, Masanet E and Horvarth A (2011b) Life cycle
Harty C, Goodier CI, Soetanto R et al. (2007) The futures of assessment of pavements. Part I: Critical review. Resources,
construction: a critical review of construction futures Conservation and Recycling 55(9–10): 801–809.
studies. Construction Management and Economics 25(5): Schminke E and Grahl B (2007) The part of LCA in ISO Type III
477–493. environmental declarations. International Journal of Life
Hewlett P (2011) Assessing risk associated with products. Cycle Assessment 12(1): 38–45.
Magazine of Concrete Research 63(8): 551–552. Skaar C and Fet AM (2011) Accountability in the value chain:
Hiemstra G (2006) Turning the Future into Revenue. John Wiley, from environmental product declaration (EPD) to CSR
Hoboken, NJ, USA. product declaration. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Howard N, Edwards S and Anderson J (1999) Methodology for Environmental Management 19(4): 228–239.
Environmental Profiles of Construction Materials, Steen B (2005) Environmental costs and benefits in life cycle
Components and Buildings. BRE, Watford, UK. costing. Management of Environmental Quality: An
Huang Y, Spray A and Parry T (2013) Sensitivity analysis of International Journal 16(2): 107–118.
methodological choices in road pavement LCA. Steen B, Garling A, Imrell AM and Sanne K (2008) Development
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18(1): 93– of interpretation keys for environmental product
101. declarations. Journal of Cleaner Production 16(5): 598–604.

8
Construction Materials Future use of life-cycle
assessment in civil engineering
Glass, Dyer, Georgopoulos et al.

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Strazza C, Del Borghi A, Blengini GA and Gallo M (2010) publications/files/resource-efficient-europe.pdf (accessed

Definition of the methodology for a sector EPD 25/08/2012).
(environmental product declaration): case study of the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (1996) Life-Cycle
average Italian cement. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment: What It Is and How to Do It. UNEP, New York,
Assessment 15(6): 540–548. NY, USA.
Technology Strategy Board (2009) Resource Efficiency Strategy Van Oers L, De Koning A, Guinee JB and Huppes G (2002) Abiotic
2009–2012. Technology Strategy Board, Swindon, UK. Resource Depletion in LCA: Improving Characterisation
Thuvander L, Gluch P, Gustafsson M and Baumann H (2011) Factors for Abiotic Resource Depletion. Road and
Twelve years of environmental work in the Swedish Hydraulic Engineering Institute, Dutch Ministry of
construction industry. Proceedings of the International Transport, Public Works and Water Management,
Sustainable Building Conference SB11, Helsinki, Finland. Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Trinius W and Sjostrom C (2007) Sustainability in building WRAP (2010) Securing the Future – the Role of Resource
construction – international standards in progress. Journal Efficiency. WRAP, Banbury, UK. See http://www.wrap.
of ASTM International 4(7), http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/ org.uk/sites/files/wrap/FULL%20REPORT%20v2.pdf
JAI101101. (accessed 17/08/2012).
UK government (2011) Europe 2020 Strategy: Roadmap to a Zamagni A, Masoni, P, Buttol P, Raggi A and Buonamici R (2012)
Resource Efficient Europe, Non-paper by the United Finding life cycle assessment research direction with the aid
Kingdom. Department for Environment, Food and Rural of meta-analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology 16(S1): S39–
Affairs, London, UK. See http://www.defra.gov.uk/ S52.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at [email protected]. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu-
dents. Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing
papers should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate
illustrations and references. You can submit your paper
online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.