The objective of this study is to address the absence of integrated sustainability assessments in buildings by combining environmental and economic life cycle methods to evaluate green vs conventional buildings. It contests the presumption that green buildings are inherently sustainable, particularly in resource-limited countries.
A cradle-to-grave analysis was performed employing integrated life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) to assess a green-certified building in comparison to its conventional counterpart. Mid-point environmental impacts were evaluated utilizing the ReCiPe approach through SimaPro, while life cycle costs were calculated as net present value over a 50-year life span. Eco-efficiency ratios were utilized to consolidate the findings.
The Green Scenario exhibits enhanced eco-efficiency, evidenced by reduced LCA/LCC ratios in key categories: global warming (USD 3.15/kg CO2 eq compared to 4.41), fossil resource use (USD 0.85/kg oil eq compared to 1.15) and freshwater eutrophication (USD 0.00044/kg P eq compared to 0.00107). Despite a slightly higher initial cost, life cycle cost efficiencies during operational and end-of-life phases result in a total cost reduction of 9.8% (USD 623.88/m2 compared to USD 691.52/m2), consequently reinforcing the environmental and economic benefits of the Green Scenario.
The findings provide quantifiable insights to guide sustainable material selection, design strategies and policy development, advancing efforts to minimize environmental impacts and enhance cost efficiency.
This study innovatively applies the eco-efficiency ratio to measure building sustainability, providing a comprehensive and contextually relevant comparison for developing nations. It facilitates evidence-based decision-making by demonstrating how green buildings may harmonize environmental performance with their economic viability throughout their whole life cycle.
