Scholarlink

Carbon reduction has become a global priority over the last 20 years. Different sectors are looking at ways to both reduce and, to a lesser extent, offset both their embodied and operational carbon. This paper outlines the process of selecting the best-fit software to carry out life Cycle assessment (LCA) of whole buildings. Selection criteria were identified from three categories of data: the software performance regarding LCA, the alignment with the software selection to a project implemented by a Welsh small- or medium-sized enterprise (SME), and the utility of the software to non-experts in the LCA field. A total of 17 applicable LCA software tools were identified through a systematic literature review and an investigation of the local market. Web-based carbon assessment tools (WBCATs) catering exclusively to LCA stages (i.e., use stage) or exclusive to limited components of buildings were eliminated from consideration. Five LCA software tools were targeted for further analysis using a qualitative Likert-scale rubric along with a financial comparison using quotes provided by the software development representatives. The results of the study illustrated a prominent level of consistency in the technical qualities of the software. The highest score variance was noted in categories relating to software applications concerning project-specific attributes, specifically concerning useability by LCA non-experts and the software design aligning with building analysis. Licensing prices were similar between products but served as a decisive factor in comparing the software options. One Click LCA was identified as most congruent with the required project needs and aligned best with the financial scope of the project. OneClick selection was supported by extant literature, which highlights both the useability for non-LCA experts, and the quality of the datasets incorporated into the One Click package. The results support the importance of the project design and intended use of the WBCAT in selecting the correct software tool. In this vein there is no one best WBCAT, but there will be a best-fit dependent on design needs. This conclusion is congruent with existing literature where the selection of a WBCAT for use in a study is determined through regional, resource, and LCA parameters.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Analysis of a Best-Fit Web-Based Carbon Assessment Tool for SME (Small and Medium Enterprise) Projects that Evaluate Operational and Embodied Carbon in Housing Stock

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2025年

查看全文
  • Jonathon J. Nodwell,
  • Kirsten Stevens-Wood,
  • John R. Littlewood,
  • Tom Addiscott,
  • Fausto Sanna

摘要

Carbon reduction has become a global priority over the last 20 years. Different sectors are looking at ways to both reduce and, to a lesser extent, offset both their embodied and operational carbon. This paper outlines the process of selecting the best-fit software to carry out life Cycle assessment (LCA) of whole buildings. Selection criteria were identified from three categories of data: the software performance regarding LCA, the alignment with the software selection to a project implemented by a Welsh small- or medium-sized enterprise (SME), and the utility of the software to non-experts in the LCA field. A total of 17 applicable LCA software tools were identified through a systematic literature review and an investigation of the local market. Web-based carbon assessment tools (WBCATs) catering exclusively to LCA stages (i.e., use stage) or exclusive to limited components of buildings were eliminated from consideration. Five LCA software tools were targeted for further analysis using a qualitative Likert-scale rubric along with a financial comparison using quotes provided by the software development representatives. The results of the study illustrated a prominent level of consistency in the technical qualities of the software. The highest score variance was noted in categories relating to software applications concerning project-specific attributes, specifically concerning useability by LCA non-experts and the software design aligning with building analysis. Licensing prices were similar between products but served as a decisive factor in comparing the software options. One Click LCA was identified as most congruent with the required project needs and aligned best with the financial scope of the project. OneClick selection was supported by extant literature, which highlights both the useability for non-LCA experts, and the quality of the datasets incorporated into the One Click package. The results support the importance of the project design and intended use of the WBCAT in selecting the correct software tool. In this vein there is no one best WBCAT, but there will be a best-fit dependent on design needs. This conclusion is congruent with existing literature where the selection of a WBCAT for use in a study is determined through regional, resource, and LCA parameters.