The carbon footprint of construction industry A review of direct and indirect emission

Abstract

Keywords: Carbon footprint; construction industry; direct emission; greenhouse gas; indirect emission; lifecycle assessment

1. Introduction

The sudden growth in the greenhouse gas emissions within our environment was initiated from the industrial age till around the end of the eighteenth century [1]. Human activities are the primary contributors to all these emissions by the consumption of fossil fuels and desertification, which increases the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere at an immense rate [1, 2]. The increase

in CO2 has become the agreed level above which the consequences of climate change will become dangerous. The impact of these actions on humankind will be pervasive and lead to disruptive weather disasters, agricultural production instability, and public health challenges [3]. CO2 is one of the dominant compound elements of the greenhouse gases and the principal causal factor of global warming [4]. It accounts for almost 82% of overall global warming, with the remainder coming from active greenhouse gases, meth-

*Corresponding author. *E-mail address: yahayakura@gmail.com Published by Yıldız Technical University Press, İstanbul, Turkey Copyright 2021, Yıldız Technical University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021

ane, and nitrous oxide [5]. The United States Energy Information and Administration estimated that by 2035, global carbon dioxide emissions would grow to around 7 percent higher than that in 2007 [6]. This suggests a potential rise in overall greenhouse gas emissions in many countries [6]. In his study, Wei Huang et al. [7] found a percentage rise in the annual average growth rate of the carbon footprint from buildings in the urban areas of Xiamen between 2005 and 2009. The carbon footprint growth between 2005 and 2007 was low, but it started to leap in 2008 [6]. In general, he found that there was an increase in the CO2 emissions from the onsite construction activities, production of construction materials, building waste disposal, building use, and material transportation [7]. In addition to that, a November 2018 study from the United Nations World Meteorological Organization found that average global CO2 concentration in 2017 exceeded 405.5 ppm, higher than that of 2015 and 2016, in which the concentration was 400.1 ppm and 403.3 ppm respectively [5]. The increment of these emissions in our atmosphere has caused the average global temperature to rise over the past 100 years by more than one degree Celsius [1, 8]. However, if left uncontrolled, the average temperatures of the earth may increase in the next coming 100 years by about 4.5 degrees Celsius or even more [1, 8]. Related research studies on economic, social, as well as other aspects were undertaken by various governments, organizations, and scholars, attempting to discover a low-carbon opportunity for sustainable development [9]. Global warming and several other environmental issues have stirred up strong international community concerns [9]. A series of international treaties have been signed, such as the “Bali Roadmap (2007), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992), the Copenhagen Agreement (2009), and the Kyoto Protocol (1997)”, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to respond to the global warming [9, 10]. Countries have made promises on pollution cuts and a plan of action according to the consensus has been finalized. Thus, the revolutionary ideas of the low-carbon life, low-carbon economy, carbon tax, low-carbon environment, and carbon trading, etc. have become the world’s primary development strategy [9]. The 2015 to 2050 period can be considered as an era of transition phase toward net-zero emissions for both buildings as well as the physical environment reflecting the agreement reached by the numerous countries attending the Paris “COP 21” [11] in 2015 [4]. The conference saw a big milestone with various stakeholders from around the world agreeing that environmental change is a shared problem for humanity. They decided that steps and measures need to be implemented to keep the average temperature of the earth well below 2 degrees Celsius with attempts to restrict the warming around 1.5 degrees Celsius [1, 11]. Because of such agreements, Malaysia attempted to minimize about 40% per capita of its carbon and other GHG emissions by 2020 [12]. Also, the United Kingdom has set out big plans for the zero-carbon rating of all new

household and commercial structures by 2016 and 2020 [13]. These are among the world’s most advanced sustainable goals for the built environment [13]. The construction sector is making a rapid transition toward net-zero carbon and energy buildings infrastructure. Today, the NZE Buildings are more often affordable and widely available across many countries [14]. Unfortunately, there are fewer studies on this dimension to help companies meet their low-carbon targets. As such this paper focuses on examining the numerous contributions of researchers across the globe towards carbon emission from the construction industry. To this end, a systematic review of the carbon footprint studies of the construction industry were undertaken, highlighting the key results and gaps for future research.

2. Methodology

A total of 105 research papers were collected originally for the study focusing on the carbon footprint of the construction sector in general, of which only 61 were chosen for the study offering a more detailed overview of the construction industry from multiple perspectives [15]. Two steps were used to improve the quality and reliability of the literature review sources [13]. The first step was carried out using structured keywords in high-quality scientific repositories and journals, including Scopus, ScienceDirect, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and the rest from other reputable journals such as Hindawi, Academic Journal of Science, American Journal of Engineering Research, Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, Journal of Environment and Earth Science, etc. Most of these articles have been published or cited over the last ten years, to ensure reliability. Various keywords were used to obtain the materials, some of which include, carbon, carbon footprint, green building, sustainable construction, zero carbon, cleaner production, carbon assessment, sustainable building materials, rating system, etc. The search found that there were a small number of papers dealing specifically with the carbon footprint of the construction industry and very few major reviews in the field. The second step consisted of industry and university studies, governments and international agencies reports, internet and media publications, etc. most of which are frequently alluded to by numerous stakeholders in the construction industry when contemplating concepts related to carbon emission aspects. This study includes databases approved by well-established sources such as the IPCC report, the World Bank records, and UN studies and reports, etc. Majority of the review studies have some limitations [13], but, in this study, a strong emphasis was placed on discussing the general research results and content analysis by various authors on the carbon footprint of the construction sector, rather than targeting specific articles, writer, or a specific aspect of the industry. The process used in establishing this study is demonstrated in the Figure 1 [13].

J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021

Figure 1. Literature review workflow (adopted from Zaid Alwan et al. 2015).

4. Carbon Footprint Of Construction Industry

The construction industry is considered to be among the major sectors that contribute significantly toward the

emission of GHGs in our environment through the mechanism of energy usage, various GHGs emissions associated with the energy production, and generation of waste, etc. And due to its significant contribution to higher GHGs emissions, Mahmure et al. [21] regarded the construction industry as one of the major drivers toward the persistent rise in temperature and global warming in general. Zaid Alwan et al. [13] added that construction has particularly impacted the environment through the production of waste, CO2 emissions, change of land use, loss of biodiversity, and climate changes. However, these problems appeared more in developing countries, for example, 24% of the CO2 generated in Malaysia comes from the construction sector [22], in India 130,477 Gg which is equivalent to 53.4% of national CO2 [23], in Nigeria, the emission from the construction and manufacturing industries increased from 2557 to 23714 Gg of CO2 equivalent between 2000 and 2015 reflecting approximately 827% increase as observed which is much above normal [24]. The “U.S. energy information and administration” reported that the CO2 emission globally will increase, by the year 2035, to about 42.7% higher than that of 2007. Thus, showing an increment of greenhouse gases in many countries [6]. However, almost 40% of the total amount of these emissions are from the construction sector [10, 18, 19, 25], in which materials consume 10–20% out of the 40% from their production to demolition, including all the related emissions from their construction, transportation, and even renovation activities, etc. [19]. The “Sustainable Building and Construction Initiative (SCBI) of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)” reported that 3040% of global energy demand is from the construction industry, which is expected to grow at an average of 1.5% to 3.4% rate in the next coming 20 years. In practical terms, the buildings contribute annually to the atmospheric emission with about 8.1 Gt of carbon dioxide [4, 26]. Tathagat D. et al. 2015 have recognized that buildings accounted for 33 percent or 7.85 Gt of all the global CO2 emissions related to energy, and the emissions are forecasted to rise by 2030 to about 11 Gt or even much higher value of 15.6 Gt [10]. It can therefore be identified as a major contributing sector to carbon emissions that requires urgent mitigation for a sustainable future. Several studies on carbon emissions from the construction of various types of structures have been

J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021

carried out by different researchers globally, some of which are presented in Table 1.

methods

264 kg CO2/m2 360 kg CO2/m2 246 kg CO2e/m2 257 kg CO2e/m2 492 kg CO2/m2 569 kg CO2/m2 467 kg CO2e/m2

3.09×107 KgCO2e 3.89×107 KgCO2e 189 kg CO2e/m2 164 kg CO2e/m2 575 kg CO2/m2 721 kg CO2/m2 942 kg CO2/m2 430 kg CO2e/m2 (average value) 228 kg CO2/m2 397 kg CO2/m2 400 kg CO2e/m2

Method

J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021

“Kua and Wong (2012)” [45] “Yan et al. (2010)” [46] Alam and Ahmad (2013) [47] Filimonau et al. (2011) [48], (adjusted)

Wallhagen et al. (2011) [40] Atmaca and Atmaca (2015) [41] Wu et al. (2012) [42] Li, et al. (2013) [43] “Van Ooteghem and Xu (2012)” [44]

I. C. Ezema et al. (2016) [4] Jingke Hong et al. (2014) [27]

Jingke Hong et al. (2014) [27] I. C. Ezema et al. (2016) [4] Jingke Hong et al. (2014) [27] I. C. Ezema et al. (2016) [4] Jingke Hong et al. (2014) [27]

Hot-rolled steel Structure made with a heavy “Pre-engineered steel” “Steel-PREDOM” “Timber-PREDOM” Reinforced steel concrete

549 kg CO2e/m2 517 kg CO2e/m2 355 kg CO2e/m2 522 kg CO2e/m2 451 kg CO2e/m2 “121 kg CO2e/m2”

Method

Timber framed house with brick cladding Conventional house, made with masonry cavity wall Office building

Table 1 (cont.). Reviewed studies on various type of civil engineering projects

106 J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021

J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021

Direct emission Indirect emission 1) Energy consumption of construction equipment such as;

1. Building materials productions and transportation

Figure 2. Process of carbon generation from construction industries [3, 7, 28, 51, 52]. Table 3. CO2 emission coefficient and waste rate for the production of construction materials

Apart from that, the value-added of the manufacturing sector was found to be the most significant positive driver of the CO2 emissions growth [60]. Jian Liu et al, 2019 [59] state that the carbon dioxide emissions from the manufacturing sector in china increased by around “220.77%” from 1995 to 2015 and contributed to about “58.27%” of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions. Nigeria is reported as one of the highest emitters of CO2 from the manufacturing and construction industries in Africa, with a total fuel combustion rate of about 12.2 percent in 2014 [61]. Another study by Wei Huang et al. (2017) revealed that the CO2 emissions from the production of material for construction purposes are responsible for more than 45 percent of the overall footprint of the industry. while on the other hand, the emissions from the use of resources accounted for about 40 percent, and carbon emissions from the transportation of building materials were just about 1%.[7].

The carbon dioxide emissions from the production of materials including, iron, flat glass, aluminium, timber, steel, and cement are generated through the life cycle process of the production [7]. In which the manufacturing process of iron and steel produces the highest volume of the total carbon emissions from all these materials [56]. Chen W Q et al. [62], and Zhu Y et al. [63] conducted a research study on the cases of environmental emissions and LC energy use from the production of materials used in residential constructions, in which they found the CO2 emission condition for the production of some of the major construction materials including timber, aluminium, glass, cement, and steel as described Table 3. The embodied CO2 of materials used in a particular building is determined by the amount and types of various materials used during the construction process. The choice of suitable construction materials therefore directly defines

J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021

the type of the energy source as well as the quantity of CO2 emission based on material type, material quality, and the emission factor of each of the materials [28]. Some of the reviewed studies related to the carbon footprints of various construction materials are tabulated Table 4. In general, the production of construction materials contributes significantly to the overall CO2 emissions of the industry, with 2/3 of the total emissions mainly coming from the production of concrete and steel. However, the emission from these two materials is connected to their manufacturing processes including cement production and steel processing, which are among the economic sectors that are heavily dependent upon fossil energy usage [27]. 4.1.3 Transportation Transportation is the movement of people and goods from a particular location to another. It includes the transportation of various construction personnel, machinery, and materials such as steel, reinforcement, fine and coarse aggregates from the original supply source to the project site [28]. Transportation and supply of various materials and equipment often affect our environment significantly by the mechanism of additional energy consumption while moving and conveying them from the production to the assembly points and finally to the project site [58]. Due to these environmental effects, this transportation activity has drawn considerable attention as it is among the primary contributors toward higher CO2 emissions globally [66]. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)” reported that the transport industry generates about 13 percent of the overall global GHG emissions annually [IPCC Climate Change (2007)] [16]. In his study, Yi Yang, et al. (2019) reported that, the carbon footprint of some major megacities including New York, London, Tokyo, and others are mainly connected to building constructions, and transportation activities, with the manufacturing sector not having more than 10% proportions [67]. Also, according to the Asian Development Bank [68], transportation contributes to about 13% of the total GHGs globally and 23% of CO2 emission related to energy usage [68], out of which 3/4 of all the transportation-related emissions is directly related to the road freight traffic [68]. Road freight in the UK accounts for about 22 percent of the transportation sector’s emissions, or 6 percent of the country’s total CO2 emissions [66]. In the United States, freight transportation accounts for about 78 percent of the total emission from transportation activities, and the percentage of the overall transportation’s GHG emissions rose from about 24.9 percent in 1900 to about

5. Discussion

The discussed papers in this review are not an extensive list of all the research studies conducted in this field, but it is easy to see proof of so many challenges, for example, the limits of each case study are often different. Some studies use a lifecycle assessment in which they study the entire impact of the concerned project or structure. While others only consider the emission measurement during extraction, production, or transportation of a particular material in their study [1]. The literature review found that the quantification for the construction sector did not put much focus on capturing the sector’s overall potential greenhouse emissions and reduction potential [15]. Nonetheless, many of the reviewed studies concentrated more on the indirect emissions and were mostly restricted owing to the inadequate comprehensive off-site and on-site process information due to limited system boundaries, especially the data related to various miscellaneous works and assembly as well as human activities associated with the construction. Apart from that other observation were made from the analysis of the literature as summarized below; • The majority of the studies analysed the carbon footprint concerning a particular country, city, or region of developed countries and were mostly funded by the public authorities. While on the contrary, developing countries and Africa, in particular, has a very minor share of the studies [15]. Hence, there is a desperate exigency for a CF study of other numerous construction activities and the industry itself in developing countries where massive amount of CO2 is generated every year, for example, 24% of CO2 generated in Malaysia comes from the construction sector [22]. In India, the transportation sector generates around “161 MMT” of CO2, making it 3rd in the world’s annual CO2 emissions, which is responsible for about 6 percent of the total emissions globally as reported in 2016 [53, 15]. Similarly, in Nigeria, the emission from the construction and manufacturing industries Increased from 2557 to 23714 Gg of CO2 equivalent between 2000 and 2015 reflecting approximately 827% increase as observed which is much above normal [24]. • The literature review found that, more than 50 percent of the studies use the process-based LCA as their main methodological approach for quantifying the construction sector’s CO2 emission. Other approaches

used include input-output analysis, Hybrid LCA, surveys, structural decomposition analysis, computer-programmed tools, and simulation [3, 1, 15]. And despite the fact that many of the research findings were based on the LCA techniques, most of these methodologies were often largely employed for buildings or regional CF analysis without focusing much on the consumption-based CF of various construction activities taking into account the unwavering importance of transportation and construction processes [15, 28]. However, even though some researchers have recognized the emission effect from the construction process, it should be noted that many other activities in the construction industries such as electrical fittings, waterproofing, thermal insulation, and painting, etc. that produce additional greenhouse gases were often omitted in such studies [27]. As such, there is a need for a thorough study on the greenhouse gas emission of a construction site using full system boundaries, including on-site assembly processes and human activities related to the construction, among many others. After analyzing each particular source of emissions and numerous studies in the literature, it can be seen that the activity with the greatest potential for GHG emission reduction were building material production. As such studies should be focused on addressing various sustainable construction material with a lower carbon footprint for use. Lastly, there are very few papers that discussed the estimation of the CO2 emissions pertaining to infrastructural projects. And, apart from a paper by Jingke Hong, et al. 2014 [27], there is no other paper found in the reviewed studies presenting a systematic, open-access, and functional tool that would enable researchers across the globe to estimate the construction’s CF comprehensively, and because of that, a comparison between these studies is not realistic owing to the wide variability in the reported figures and the different assumptions and presumption made by the authors [72]. This shows areas where steps can be taken to minimize the carbon emissions not just in the construction sector itself but also in many other interconnected sectors such as transportation, mining, manufacturing, among others [15].

6. Conclusion

Several researchers have studied the various contributions of the construction sector towards GHG emissions. However, from the systematic analysis of some of these studies, it has been found that the majority of researchers are primarily focused on a case study of a particular country, city, or region using life cycle assessment methods [3, 1]. In general, comparisons between the results of the reviewed papers are unreasonable as many of the findings were different, some of the authors examined only one particular aspect of the con-

J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021

struction, some towns, some countries, etc. And even those who have studied similar aspect, such as cement or steel, have all used separate methodologies, different techniques of reporting, and even the units used were mostly different. Despite this, the scope of emission from the construction industry is remarkably clear, and the carbon findings can be found throughout the literature [3][9, 72]. Various ways to reduce the CF of the construction industry have been widely discussed, but most of the strategies are designs to mitigate the near future climate change impact without considering the impact in the longer future [18].

Data Availability Statement

The authors confirm that the data that supports the findings of this study are available within the article. Raw data that support the finding of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

Financial Disclosure

The author declared that this study has received no financial support.

References

1. unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.
2. David John Jackson,(2020). Addressing the chal- pdf lenges of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the [12] Surenthira Stephen Ramachanderan, Vinod Kumar construction industry: a multi-perspective approach Venkiteswaran, Yap Tze Chuen, (2017). Carbon (Doctor of dissertation). (CO2) Footprint Reduction Analysis for Buildings
3. Edeoja Joy Acheyini, Edeoja Alex Okibe,(2015). through Green Rating Tools in Malaysia. Energy Carbon Emission Management in the Construction Procedia, 105, 3648 – 3655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Industry – Case Studies Of Nigerian Construction egypro.2017.03.841 Industry. American Journal of Engineering Re- [13] Z. Alwan, P. Jones, and P. Holgate, (2016). Strategic search (AJER), 4 (7), 112-122. http://www.ajer.org/ sustainable development in the UK construction papers/v4(07)/O04701120122.pdf industry, through the framework for strategic sus-
4. Jennifer Monahan, (2013). Housing and carbon re- tainable development, using Building Information duction: Can mainstream ‘eco-housing’ deliver on Modelling. J. Clean. Prod., 140, 349–358. https://doi. its low carbon promises? (Doctoral dissertation) org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.085
5. I. C. Ezema, A. P. Opoko, and A. A. Oluwatayo, (2016). De-carbonizing the Nigerian Housing Sec- ahani, K. Kadner, Seyboth, J. Minx, (2014). Summa- tor: The Role of Life Cycle CO2 Assessment. Inter- ry for policymakers, Climate Change, Mitigation of national journal of applied environmental science., Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group 11(1), 325–349. III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergov-
6. United nation environment programme, (2015). UN ernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved environment “walk the talk” on carbon neutrality. from IPCC Publications: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ Retrieved from: https://www.unenvironment.org/ assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summa- news-and-stories/story/un-environment-walks-talk ry-for-policymakers.pdf carbonneutrality#:~:text=A%20November%20 [15] Nuri Cihat Onat, Murat Kucukvar, (2020). Carbon 2018%20report%20by,and%20400.1%20ppm%20 footprint of construction industry: A global review in%202015. and supply chain analysis. Renewable and Sustain-
7. Q. Shi, T. Yu, and J. Zuo,(2017). What leads to able Energy Reviews, 124. 109783. http://dx.doi. J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021 113 org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109783 global-building-sector-to-2050-GR-3.pdf.
8. Shashwath Sreedhar, Prathmesh Jichkar, Krishna Prapoorna Biligiri, (2016). Investigation of Carbon liam Sin-tong Lau, Chao Mao, (2014). Greenhouse Footprints of Highway Construction Materials in gas emissions during the construction phase of a India. Transportation Research Procedia, 17, 291 – building: a case study in China. Journal of Cleaner
9. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, (2020). carbon jclepro.2014.11.023 footprint. (accessed on 6/06/2020) retrieved from [28] Feifei Fu, Hanbin Luo, Hua Zhong, and Andrew Hill, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint (2014). Development of a Carbon Emission Calcula-
10. A. Mastrucci, A. Marvuglia, E. Leopold, E. Benet- tions System for Optimizing Building Plan Based on to, (2017). Life Cycle Assessment of building stocks the LCA Framework. Hindawi Publishing Corpo- from urban to transnational scales: a review. Re- ration, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, ID new. Sustain. Energy Rev., 74, 316-332, 10.1016/j. 653849. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/653849 rser.2017.02.060Article [29] Shihui Cheng, Jianyi Lin, Wangtu (Ato) Xu, Dewei
11. Judit Nyári, (2015). Carbon footprint of construc- Yangd, Jiahui Liu, Huimei Li, (2020). Carbon, water, tion products (a comparison of application of in- land and material footprints of China’s high-spee- dividual Environmental Product Declarations and drailway construction. Transportation Research Building Information Modeling software) (Bachelor Part D, 82, 102314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. Dissertation). trd.2020.102314
12. Andriel Evandro Fenner, Charles Joseph Kibert, Junghoon Woo, Shirley Morque, Mohamad Raz- assessment of residential buildings in three differ- kenari, Hamed Hakim, Xiaoshu Lu, (2018). The ent European locations, case study. Build. Environ, carbon footprint of buildings: A review of method- 51, 402-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.build- ologies and Applications. Renewable and Sustain- env.2011.11.002 able Energy Reviews, 94, 1142 – 1152. https://doi. [31] Surahman, U. and Kubota, T., (2013). Life Cycle org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.012 Energy and CO2 Emissions of Residential Buildings
13. M. Ö. Arıoğlu Akan, D. G. Dhavale, and J. Sarkis, in Bandung, Indonesia. Advanced Materials Re- (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions in the construc- search, 689, 54-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/build- tion industry: an analysis and evaluation of a con- ings5041131 crete supply chain. J. Clean. Prod., 167, 1195-207. [32] Konig, H., Cristofaro, M.L.D., (2012). Benchmarks https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.225 for life cycle costs and life cycle assessment of res-
14. M. F. Klufallah, Mustafa M.A.; Nuruddin, Muhd idential buildings. Build. Res. Inform. 40 (5), 558- Fadhil; Othman, Idris; Khamidi, (2016). The devel- 580. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.702017 opment of embodied carbon emission benchmark [33] Abanda, F. H., Nkeng, G. E., Tah, J. H. M., Ohand- model for purpose-built offices in Malaysia. Eng. ja, E. N. F. and Manjia, M.B., (2014). Embodied En- Challenges Sustain. Future, 199–204. ergy and CO2 Analyses of Mud-brick and Cement
15. S. K. Sharma et al. (2011). Greenhouse gas inventory block Houses. AIM’s Energy, 2(1), 18-40. https://doi. estimates for India. Curr. Sci., 101 (3), 405–415. org/10.3934/energy.2014.1.18
16. BUR1 (2018). Federal Republic of Nigeria First Bi- ennial Update Report (BUR1) of the Federal Repub- (2010). Illustrating limitations of energy studies lic of Nigeria under the United Nations Framework of buildings with LCA and actor analysis. Build. Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Res. Information, 38 (3), 265-279. http://dx.doi.
17. B. Lin, O. E. Omoju, and J. U. Okonkwo, (2015). org/10.1080/09613211003654871 Impact of industrialization on CO2 emissions in Ni- [35] Blengini, G.A., Carlo, T.D., (2010). Energy-saving geria. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 52, 1228–1239. policies and low-energy residential buildings: an DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.164 LCA case study to support decision makers in Pied-
18. Ortiz, O., Castells, F., Sonnemann, G., (2010). Oper- nology Enhancements and Emerging Engineering, ational energy in the life cycle of residential dwell- 2(1), 1 – 4. ings: the experience of Spain and Colombia. Appl. [48] Filimonau, V., Dickinson, J., Robbins, D., Huijbregts, Energy, 87 (2), 673-680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. M.A.J., (2011). Reviewing the carbon footprint anal- scitotenv.2010.02.021 ysis of hotels: Life Cycle Energy Analysis (LCEA) as a
19. Hacker, J., De Saulles, T., Minson, A., and Holmes, holistic method for carbon impact appraisal of tour- M., (2008). Embodied and operational carbon di- ist accommodation. J. Clean. Prod., 18, 1917-1930. oxide emissions from housing: A case study on http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.07.002 the effects of thermal mass and climate change. [49] Purnell, P., (2013). The carbon footprint of reinforced Energy and Buildings, 40(3), 375-384. https://doi. concrete. Advances in Cement Research, 25(6), 362- org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.02.021 368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/adcr.13.00013
20. Williams, D., Elghali, L., Wheeler, R., France, C., (2012). Climate change influence on building life- Measuring and Monitoring Environmental and cycle greenhouse gas emissions: case study of a UK Carbon Footprint in Construction Supply Chains. mixed-use development. Energy Build,. 48, 112-126. Procedia Engineering, 14, 141–147. http://dx.doi. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.01.016 org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.016
21. Wallhagen, M., Glaumann, M., Malmqvist, T., (2011). Basic building life cycle calcu- lations to de- in construction. (accessed on 12/06/2020) Retrieved crease contribution to climate change e case study from https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/ on an office building in Sweden. Build. Environ., 46 Carbon_dioxide_in_construction#:~:text=Sustain- (10), 1863-1871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.build- able%20materials,product%20of%20the%20chemi- env.2011.02.003 cal%20reactions
22. Atmaca, A. and Atmaca, N., (2015). Life cycle energy (LCEA) and carbon dioxide emissions (LCCO2A) struction sector views on low carbon building mate- assessment of two residential buildings in Gazian- rials. Build. Res. Inf., 44(4), 423–444. https://doi.org tep, Turkey, Energy and Buildings, 102, 417-431. /10.1080/09613218.2016.1086872 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2015.06.008 [53] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Mining. (accessed
23. Wu, H.J., Yuan, Z.W., Zhang, L., Bi, J.,(2012). Life cy- on 14/06/2020) retrieved from https://en.wikipedia. cle energy consumption and CO2 emission of an office org/wiki/Mining#:~:text=Mining%20is%20the%20 building in China. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 17 (2), extraction%20of,economic%20interest%20to%20 105-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0342-2 the%20miner.
24. Li, D. Z., Chen, H. X., Hui, E. C. M., Zhang, J. B. and Li, Q. M., (2013). A methodology for estimating the and Kimberly Henderson, (2020). Climate risk and life-cycle carbon efficiency of a residential building. decarbonization: What every mining CEO needs to Building and Environment, 59, 448-455. http://dx. know. Metals & Mining and Sustainability Practices, doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.09.012 Retrieved from: https://www.mckinsey.com
25. Van Ooteghem, K., Xu, L., (2012). The life-cycle assessment of a single-story retail building in Can- traction responsible for half world’s carbon emis- ada. Build. Environ. 49, 212-226. http://dx.doi. sion. (accessed on 13/06/2020), retrieved from: org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.09.028 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/
26. Kua, H.W., Wong, C.L., (2012). Analyzing the life mar/12/resource-extraction-carbon-emissions-bio- cycle greenhouse gas emission and energy con- diversity-loss#:~:text=Extraction. sumption of a multi-storied commercial building [56] St´ephanie Muller, Fr´ed´eric Lai, Antoine Bey- in Singapore from an extended system boundary lot, Baptiste Boitier, Jacques Villeneuve,(2020). No perspective. Energy Build., 51, 6-14. http://dx.doi. mining activities, no environmental impacts? As- org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.03.027 sessing the carbon footprint of metal requirements
27. Yan, H., Shen, Q., Fan, L.C.H., Wang, Y., Zhang, induced by the consumption of a country with al- L., (2010). Greenhouse gas emissions in building most no mines. Sustainable Production and Con- construction: a case study of One Peking in Hong sumption, 22, 24-33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Kong. Build. Environ., 45 (4), 949-955. http://dx.doi. spc.2020.02.002 org/10.1016%2Fj.buildenv.2009.09.014 [57] A. Mohammed, M. Abbakyari,(2016). Strategies for
28. Alam, M. S. and Ahmad, S. I., (2013). Analysis of the achieving sustainability in the Nigerian building de- life cycle environmental impact of residential build- sign and construction industry. Ideal Journal of En- ing in Bangladesh. International Journal of Tech- gineering and Applied Sciences, 2,(3), 103-108. J Sustain Const Mater Technol, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, pp. 101–115, September 2021 115
29. Adebowale Philips Akinyemi, Asa Olusola Adekun- org/10.1155/2015/814527 le, Omotehinse Olusegun Joseph, Ankeli Ikpeme [67] Yi Yang, Guanfei Meng, (2019). The decoupling ef- Anthony, and Daniel Ibrahim Dabara, (2017). The fect and driving factors of carbon footprint in meg- need for green building rating systems development acities: The case study of Xi’an in western China. for Nigeria: the process, progress, and prospect. Ac- Sustainable cities and society, 44, 783 – 792. https:// ademic Journal of Science, 7 (2), 35–44. doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.11.012
30. Jian Liu, Qingshan Yang, Yu Zhang, Wen Sun, and Yiming Xu, (2019). Analysis of CO2 Emissions in Emissions from Transport Project. Retrieved from China’s Manufacturing Industry Based on Extended https://www.oecd.org/derec/adb/47170274.pdf Logarithmic Mean Division Index Decomposition. [69] National Construction Sector Lead U.S. Environ- Sustainability, 11(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.3390/ mental Protection Agency Washington, (2009). Po- su11010226 tential for reducing greenhouse gas emission in the
31. Chen C., Gong, Z.,(2013). The Research on the construction sector. Retrieved from truitt.peter@ Change Points and Cycles of Carbon Dioxide Emis- epa.gov sions of China’s Manufacturing Industry from 1985 [70] Raymond J. Cole, (1999). Energy and Greenhouse to 2010. Forum Sci. Technol. China, 1, 51–59. http:// Gas Emissions Associated with the Construction of dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11010226 Alternative Structural Systems. Building and Envi-
32. The World bank, (2014). CO2 emissions from man- ronment,34, 335 – 34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2 ufacturing industries and construction (% of total FS0360-1323(98)00020-1 fuel combustion). (accessed on 24/06/2020), Re- [71] Ozen, M., & Tuydeş Yaman, H., (2013a). Estimation trieved from:https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ of CO2 Emissions from Inter-City Freight Transpor- EN.CO2.MANF.ZS tation in Turkey. Süleyman Demirel University Jour-
33. Zhu Y, Chen Y., (2010). Cases for life-cycle energy nal of Natural and Applied Science, 17(3), 56-64. consumption and environmental emission in res- [72] Man Yu, Thomas Wiedmann, Robert Crawford, idential buildings. Journal of Tsinghua University Catriona Tait, (2017). The carbon footprint of (Science and Technology), 50(3), 330-33. Australia’s construction sector. Procedia Engineer-
34. Chen W Q, Wan H Y., (2009). Life cycle assessment ing, 180, 211 – 220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pro- of aluminum and the environmental impacts of alu- eng.2017.04.180 minum industry. Light Metals, 5, 310. [73] H. Fan, (2017). A Critical Review and Analysis of
35. Hammond, G., & Jones, C., (2011). Inventory of Construction equipment emission factors. Pro- Carbon & Energy (ICE) Version 2.0. Sustainable cedia Engineering, 196, 351 – 358. https://doi. Energy Research Team (SERT), Department of Me- org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.210 chanical Engineering, University of Bath UK. [74] Feng Ma, Aimin Sha, Ruiyu Lin, Yue Huang, and
36. Hammond, G. and Jones, C., (2008) Embod- Chao Wang, (2016). Greenhouse Gas Emissions ied energy and carbon in construction materials. from Asphalt Pavement Construction: A Case Study Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: in China. international journal of environmental Energy, 161(2), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1680/ research and public health,13(3), 351. http://dx.doi. ener.2008.161.2.87 org/10.3390/ijerph13030351
37. Jin Li, Qihui Lu, and Peihua Fu, (2015). Carbon Footprint Management of Road Freight Transport Abegaz,(2019). Embodied Energy and CO2 Emis- under the Carbon Emission Trading Mechanism. sions of Widely Used Building Materials: The Ethi- Hindawi (Advanced Transportation Mathematical opian Context. Buildings, 9(6), 136. https://doi. Modeling and Simulation), ID 814527, https://doi. org/10.3390/buildings9060136
38. Rossi, B., Marique, A.F., Reiter, S., (2012). Life-cycle
39. J. C. Cheng, (2011). A Web Service Framework for
40. J. Giesekam, J. R. Barrett, and P. Taylor, (2016). Con-
41. The Guardian Newspaper,(2019). Resource ex-
42. Asian Development bank, (2010). Reducing Carbon

Share and Cite