Life cycle assessment use in the North American building community: summary of findings from a 2011/2012 survey

摘要

Purpose Life cycle assessment (LCA) can reveal valuable information pertaining to materials, water, and energy that will be consumed throughout a building's entire predicted life span; however, it is often underutilized in practice. Individuals in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) community are in positions to influence the use of LCA. Thus, this article seeks to clarify the state of knowledge of LCA among this population and understand the perceived benefits of and barriers to its application. Methods Building upon the researchers' results using focus groups, a national survey of AEC professionals, owners/clients, and related groups was developed to educe knowledge and perceptions within the AEC community. Existing literature suggests time and data demands, complexity, and cost to benefit ratio uncertainty among current LCA framework shortcomings. The survey was structured to further investigate these findings. Furthermore, the survey recorded both a self-assessed and measured level of each respondent's LCA understanding, which served as a validation for other responses. The information collected spanned a broad range, including LCA knowledge, LCA experience, perceived benefits and barriers to LCA adoption, software tool utilization, and LCA in conjunction with sustainability, in general, and with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. Results and discussion Respondents represented over a dozen AEC professions, approximately half being architects and engineers. Ninety percent reported having at least moderate familiarity with sustainability, and 62 % considered sustainability important in their projects for at least 4 years. Only 33 % of those individuals, however, used LCA in half of their projects or more, predominantly for energy analysis. A substantial percentage of respondents exhibited competency in defining LCA, but the disconnect between awareness and the use of LCA can be largely attributed to a perceived lack of demand. However, 86 % of respondents who currently use LCA reported being at least moderately likely to increase their usage of LCA in the future. Conclusions The ability of an LCA to advance sustainability by informing decision-making and provide environmental impact information using a long-term, holistic perspective is valuable to most potential users. Additional benefits and barriers specific to the building sector were revealed in this study, and the factors that may contribute to these perceptions were explored, the knowledge of which can be beneficial in efforts to optimize LCA adoption. Finally, since Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) version 4.0 explicitly includes LCA, we anticipate a greater integration and use of LCA in the AEC community.