![Facebook data centre [8].](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Deborah-Andrews/publication/271710820/figure/fig1/AS:378678182727683@1467295322623/Facebook-data-centre-8_Q320.jpg)
![Inside a data hall [11].](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Deborah-Andrews/publication/271710820/figure/fig2/AS:378678182727684@1467295322667/Inside-a-data-hall-11_Q320.jpg)
![Embodied and operational impacts from Shah et al. study [75].](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Deborah-Andrews/publication/271710820/figure/fig8/AS:668863834370054@1536480973551/Embodied-and-operational-impacts-from-Shah-et-al-study-75_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Deborah Andrews
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Deborah Andrews on Jun 30, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Deborah Andrews
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Deborah Andrews on Jun 30, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Deborah Andrews
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Deborah Andrews on Oct 16, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Assessing the environmental impact of data centres part 2: Building
environmental assessment methods and life cycle assessment
Beth Whitehead
a
,
*
, Deborah Andrews
a
, Amip Shah
b
, Graeme Maidment
a
a
Faculty of Engineering Science and the Built Environment, London South Bank University, 103 Borough Road, London SE1 0AA, UK
b
HP Labs, 1501 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA
article info
Article history:
Received 15 May 2014
Received in revised form
14 July 2014
Accepted 8 August 2014
Available online 20 August 2014
Keywords:
Data centres
Environmental impact
Life cycle assessment
Building environmental assessment
methods
Life cycle assessment tools
abstract
Data centres consume high levels of energy to power the IT equipment contained within them, and
extract the heat they produce. Because of the industry's heavy reliance on power, data centre metrics
have historically used operational efficiency as a proxy for sustainability. More recently the industry has
begun to recognise that its focus needs to go beyond energy consumption, with the creation of metrics
for issues such as carbon, water and compute efficiency. However, single-issue metrics often consider
only the operational phase, omitting impacts from other issues, during other stages in a facility's lifetime.
Further approaches exist to assess more holistically the impact of data centres, such as building envi-
ronmental assessment methods, but none have the capacity to capture fully the interlinked nature of a
system, where improvements in one area and to one impact, can adversely affect a totally different area
and totally different impacts.
The following review of literature summarises the approach of the data centre industry to environ-
mental impact, and provides direction for future research. Part 2 describes the use of building envi-
ronmental assessment methods and tools; and concludes the need to apply life cycle thinking to more
holistically assess the environmental impact of data centres.
©2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
This paper is the second of a two-part literature review that
explains the background to current methods of assessment used by
the data centre industry, and concludes the need for a more holistic
approach to the management of environmental impact in the
future. Continuing from part 1, this paper describes the use of
building environmental assessment methods and tools; and based
on both parts of the review, concludes the need to apply life cycle
thinking to more holistically assess the environmental impact of
data centres.
2. Building environmental assessment methods
Beyond single-issue metrics, discussed in part 1, building envi-
ronmental assessment methods (BEAMs) are also used, to under-
stand and reduce the impact of data centres on the environment,
while reducing their demand on power infrastructures. BEAMs
award credits for the performance of buildings against benchmarks
within a set number of impact categories. In most schemes, credits
are weighted according to the relative gravity with which they
impact on the environment, and a final rating awarded such as
Excellent or Outstanding to show the overall performance of the
building.
In the UK, the standard methodology used is the Building
Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology
(BREEAM). This ‘scorecard tool’is the only scheme from across the
globe that has a data centre specific framework. The scheme is
voluntary [1], and provides an end rating which acts as a label for
the improvement in environmental performance of a building [2,3].
Across the globe many non-data centre specific assessment
methods exist such as:
HQE (France),
Energy Star for Data Centres (which considers operational effi-
ciency only),
NABERS (Australia),
CASBEE (Japan),
Green Mark (Singapore),
*Corresponding author. Operational Intelligence, 74 Kelvedon Close, Kingston
upon Thames, Surrey KT2 5LF, UK. Tel.: þ44 (0) 7739 019960.
E-mail addresses: BethWhitehead@dc-oi.com,bethfwhitehead@gmail.com
(B. Whitehead).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Building and Environment
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.08.015
0360-1323/©2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Building and Environment 93 (2015) 395e405
Green Star (South Africa),
ESTIDAMA (Middle East),
CEPAS (Hong Kong),
BEAM (Hong Kong),
SBAT (South Africa), and
Green Globes (Canada).
The Australian tool, NABERS, can be used to rate one of three
components eIT, services (to support the IT), and the facility as a
whole. The method is different from other BEAMs because it
benchmarks the greenhouse gases emitted by each component
over a twelve-month period of operation [4]. Likewise, Energy Star
for Data Centres can also be used to rate the energy efficiency of
facilities and monitor greenhouse gas emissions. It provides a rat-
ing from 1 to 100 and awards an Energy Star certified building
designation for any building that achieves a score of over 75; to date
41 data centres have been certified [5].
2.1. Evaluation of building environmental assessment methods
Specific concerns with the validity in application of BEAMs to
determine the sustainability of a structure are prevalent in recent
research.
There are many studies that compare existing BEAMs in an in-
ternational setting [6]. Considering only the energy aspect of the
methods, in 2008 Lee and Burnett [7] concluded that although the
baseline performance of buildings using BREEAM, LEED and HK-
BEAM were comparable, BREEAM set the most difficult targets.
However, by 2012 Lee [8] reported that LEED now set more strin-
gent energy targets due to changes in the method. Nonetheless the
overall results were still comparable. In 2012 Ng et al. [9] compared
carbon emissions between methods finding varying results, a
concentration on operation and the need for a common standard to
evaluate carbon emissions of a building. Most comparisons, how-
ever, are generic and although different stakeholders have
completed them, provide similar comparisons and conclusions as
discussed below.
BEAMs have had a positive impact on the construction industry
[10] by raising awareness of the environmental impact of buildings
and sustainability [1,3], and by driving the reduction of environ-
mental impact [11]. However, they were originally designed to
assess the environmental impact of buildings [12], and as the
paradigm has shifted away from environmental impact towards
sustainability, a ‘best fit’approach [1,3] has seen them adopted and
adapted [12,13] in an attempt to encompass the complexities of
sustainability ean approach considered by many to be an over-
simplification of the problem [1,3,14]. Indeed, Pope et al. [15]
described BEAMs as rating systems that look to minimise or avoid
impacts, rather than determine whether a building is or is not
sustainable [14,16].
Consensus-based weightings, which are complex and inflexible
[10], are intrinsic to both LEED and BREEAM, which Trusty and
Horst [17] and Cole [1,3] both argue reduces the scientific rigour of
the methods. Indeed experts from different sectors rarely come to a
consensus [18]. However, recent comparisons using statistical
analysis show this division is no longer so apparent, with Lee [11]
noting the achievement of moderate consensus on weightings
and rankings across the five schemes studied.
More worryingly, is their apparent acceptance as ‘conventional
environmental wisdom’[17]. Trusty and Horst [17] highlight how the
award of credits for recycling is not always correct. For example, it's
noted that although recycling halts waste to landfill, without
scientifically determining the energy used and emissions produced
from both the scenarios (landfill and recycling), it cannot be taken
for granted that recycling is the more environmentally beneficial of
the two in every case [17]. Without considering the subject more
holistically, the final outcome is not necessarily the most sustain-
able. Indeed, in BREEAM Data Centres [18] credits are awarded for
the lowest discounted life cycle costs (BREEAM credit Man 12), even
though this could penalise alternative technologies. These studies
highlight the intricacies and interrelationships between impacts on
the environment [17] and show the need for a system that does not
assess them independently [19].
Pope et al. [15] notes that BEAMs look to minimise ‘unsustain-
ability’rather than create sustainability. Furthermore, by the award
of prescriptive credits, they have produced a culture of ‘points
chasing’[3,16] and ‘gaming’[1], where designers go for easily
obtainable credits over high-value credits that offer big longterm
benefits [18]. They are effectively being used as design tools rather
than rating systems [1], and worryingly, studies of the total life
cycle embodied impacts of major building materials have shown
that halving the values found would yield no additional credits [17],
questioning their ability to fully assess the sustainability of a
building.
3. Life cycle assessment (LCA)
The previous discussions show that there is no mechanism
currently employed by the industry to understand the total life
cycle impact from decisions made during the design and operation
of facilities. To truly assess environmental sustainability, a life cycle
approach is required that considers the performance of a building
from its manufacturing to eventual disposal, and for more than just
single issues like energy or carbon. This is not a new viewpoint, and
was already set out by the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit,
which called for a life cycle approach to support models of sus-
tainable consumption and production [20]. Moreover, studies of
buildings show that the greatest impacts on human health and
toxic releases are during the embodied phase, while the greatest
impacts from energy and the resulting GHGs are during the oper-
ational phase [21]. Omitting either phase would therefore be
erroneous.
LCA is a systematic tool for assessing iteratively the impact a
product, process or service has on the environment [22] as shown
in Fig. 1. Through the compilation of an inventory, an LCA looks at
the products and processes contained within a system, from the
extraction of raw materials through manufacturing, transportation,
operation, and eventual disposal [23] efrom cradle to grave. The
assessment uses functional units, which enable designers and en-
gineers to compare design choices based on their potential impacts
on resource use, human health, and ecology [24].
There are three general types of LCA: process-based, input-
output, and hybrid [25,26] which can be completed to varying
degrees of accuracy, from screening to ‘full-blown’process-based
(detailed) studies [22,27]. Screening LCAs provide an estimated
picture for the environmental impact. They make use of process-
based LCI data from previous studies held in databases, and
where data does not exist, approximate components to the nearest
comparable option by using ‘surrogate LCAs’as proxy data [28]. For
example, steel produced in Germany could be used to approximate
steel produced in the UK. Such an LCA allows the user to under-
stand the general pattern of impact in a comparatively short period
of time, by reducing the precision of the study, and helps focus on
areas where improvements could be made.
Where there is a gap in the LCI data, or where an approximation
is not possible, or in complex studies, economic input output (EIO)
data can be used alongside the process-based data in a hybrid LCA
[25,29,30]. EIO looks at the total emissions produced by sectors
within the economy, providing data for the entire supply chain of
that product [31]. A component manufactured within a certain
B. Whitehead et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 395e405396
sector, is then apportioned part of the environmental load based on
its contribution to the total value of the sector (after purchasing has
been accounted for).
3.1. Evaluation of LCA
Research into the application of LCA, and its strengths and
weaknesses, is prolific. Much of the literature concentrates on
guiding practitioners on the general theory of LCA [27e35], and
case studies, with a growing field of research into broader areas
[36e38] such as: LCSA (life cycle sustainability assessment), LCC
(life cycle costing) and SLCA (social life cycle assessment).
3.1.1. LCSA, LCC and SLCA
LCSA is a young and growing branch of LCA concerned with the
assessment of life cycle environmental, economic and social im-
pacts. From early methods such as proto-LCA [39] and PROSA [40],
Kl€
opffer [41] derived an equation for LCSA:
LCSA ¼LCA þLCC þSLCA, where LCC stands for (environmental)
life cycle costing. Though the equation suggests a summation of the
three assessments, the conceptual equation actually points to the
need for consistent system boundaries for all methods and equiv-
alent product systems, in an attempt to mitigate double-counting
[42]. Much of the literature concentrates on the general theory of
LCSA [41,43]; and the research and efforts needed to make the
method practical [36e38].
Many of the problems that exist for LCA remain within this
framework such as a lack of data [44]. In addition, the relative in-
fancy [45] of SLCA means that there is no conclusion on a common
set of indicators, and very little inventory data [43], which make the
method time-consuming. Kl€
opffer [41] addresses the need for
clarity in whether all three life cycle assessments should be
completed or whether a single life cycle inventory should be
completed with LCC and SLCA included as additional impact cate-
gories, concluding the use of three separate methods.
SLCA is the consideration of social impacts over the full life cycle
of a product, or process. It ‘is in its infancy’[45] compared to ELCA
[46], and ‘there is still little experience with the use and imple-
mentation of it’[47]. Social impact is difficult to quantify and as a
result there is not one singularlyagreed method. Methods exist that
use quantitative indicators such as Weidema [48], Hunkeler [45],
but so too are there methods that suggest semi-quantitative [49]
and qualitative indicators. There is little agreement in current
literature as to a single method of assessment, and as a result
different methods provide different results. However, more
recently the creation of the Social Hotspot Database [50], and the
UNEP-SETAC guidelines [51] have begun to give data and stand-
ardisation to the method.
A number of methods and models exist for the assessment of the
economic dimension of sustainability such as cost benefit analysis
and eco-efficiency analysis (CALCAS, 2009a), however LCSA [41]
specifically calls for LCC [42,52].
LCC takes into account any capital costs arising from the con-
struction, manufacturing, operation and maintenance, and the end-
of-life including any residual values [53] (BSI, 2008). It is pertinent
to note that LCC is different to whole life costing (WLC) in which
externalities, non-construction costs, income and other intricacies
of the economy are included. LCC, on the other hand only includes
internal costs directly covered by actors esuch as suppliers and
users ewithin the product life cycle to avoid double-counting of
environmental impacts [42]. However, environmental life cycle
costing [54] eas referred to in the equation for LCSA eincludes
‘externalities that are anticipated to be internalised in the decision-
relevant future’[55].
Similar challenges to the adoption of LCC exist as for LCA and
SLCA, including quality of data and difficulties with allocation [56];
with additional volatility from the need to select ‘appropriate dis-
count rates’and currencies [56,57]. LCC differs from LCA and SLCA
in the omission of an LCIA from the process as the assessment uses
one single common unit emonetary value ebut enable LCSA all
three should exhibit a consistent product system [56].
3.1.2. LCA
The literature tends to be in agreement on the issues that make
LCA difficult to apply, and the strengths that outweigh these
weaknesses. Concerns with LCA were well reviewed in the litera-
ture by Rebitzer et al. [27],Kl
€
opffer [39], and Reap et al. [33,34] and
included:
subjective weighting;
poorly defined functional units and system boundaries;
difficulty in avoiding allocation;
the use of cut-off criteria that omit important flows;
uncertainty in interpretation decisions;
difficulty in data collection and poor data quality in LCI and
LCIA;
the difficulty in translating emissions to environmental impact;
and
the omission of spatial variations.
In 2009, research by CALCAS [36e38] summarised similar issues
backed up by numerous other studies with similar conclusions,
many of which remain evident today as discussed by Cooper and
Kahn [58], and Rack and Valdivia [59].
Most case studies focus on components and construction ma-
terials within buildings such as heating and air conditioning
[23,60,61] servers [62] network switches [63] and building
Fig. 1. The four steps of a life cycle assessment.
B. Whitehead et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 395e405 397
materials [64], yet studies into different construction types and
whole buildings have become ever more prevalent [23,65e68].
Nonetheless, because buildings consume 40% of total global energy
[26], there has been a focus on lifetime energy consumption.
Importantly, there is little evidence of research that considers
detailed LCA for buildings with the inclusion of the building ser-
vices [65]. Some include the operational impact, but few include
the impacts embodied from the manufacturing, replacement,
modifications and disposal of the components [64]. When consid-
ering a data centre ewhere components are replaced frequently
and on a large scale ethis is a crucial omission. Studies for con-
ventional buildings show that material impacts from components
within a building can have a marked influence, and their omission
from LCA studies is one of the ‘major deficiencies of simplified LCAs’
[65].
Data centres are buildings of extremes, and although opera-
tional energy is extremely high, the replacement of IT equipment
every three to five years [69] also results in huge numbers of
components, all with an embodied impact. Additionally, as the
operational phase becomes more efficient, this embodied impact
will become more relevant [21], particularly if its impact is not
understood and no attempts are made to improve it. Furthermore,
there is a distinct lack of LCI data for building services [65], and
many of the studies thatdo take consideration of these components
are based on streamlined approaches.
As already established, many building studies are incomplete,
for example Verbeeck and Hens [64] note the common omission of
impacts from the replacement of components or modifications of
buildings during their operation. Bilec et al. [29] further note the
frequent omission of the construction phase; Carpenter et al. [70],
the management of construction and demolition debris; and Mar-
tinez et al. [71], the inadequacies of most end-of-life scenarios due
to the complexities of the management routes.
A key barrier to the application of LCA in any industry is the lack
of availability of data, particularly for the building service and IT
components; and for the construction and demolition stages.
Future work needs to address this shortage so that data is available
to the same extent as in the construction material industry. Here,
the award of BREEAM credits in return for low life cycle impacting
materials has seen the market adopt the method, and helped to
create a competitive edge for the manufacturers. The inclusion of
further components within these credits would therefore help to
create this data.
The need to deal with complexities of the method, such as
weighting and allocation, can be reduced by the development of
building models and LCA tools by environmental impact experts.
Creating a tool that applies the same model each time, opens the
method up to a far wider audience of non-environmental experts.
With a tool in place, benchmarks and a rating system based on LCA
can be established. A rating system, which is already an accepted
method, would remove the need for the majority of building de-
signers to run LCA models at all. Instead designers and operators
would design their buildings according to the benchmarks pro-
vided by the method.
Regardless of the issues with LCA, it remains a widely adopted
and accepted method for environmental impact assessment.
Beyond the recognition that many stages are being omitted, there is
also evidence that there is a growing demand for designers to go
beyond component-level LCAs to consider the sustainable con-
struction of entire buildings. Further to the ISO standards for LCA
[24,72], Technical Committee CEN/TC 350 (Sustainability of Con-
struction Works) has produced a set of standards that builds on ISO
14044 with specific reference to construction works [73], and is
working on further codes for the assessment of social (prEN 16309)
and economic (prEN 16627) impact eall with an LCA focus. In
addition, it is apparent from the release of The Green Grid [74]
guidelines for data centre LCA, and harmonised standards for the
LCA of ICT equipment (again based on ISO 14044) in ETSI TS 103 199
[75] that the application of LCA to buildings and data centres is
becoming more prevalent.
3.2. Full life cycle impact of energy in data centre components
Continuing the focus of data centre metrics on operational en-
ergy, early life cycle studies of data centres have drawn particular
conclusions surrounding energy.
According to Mahadevan et al. [63] and Liu et al. [63] when
considering products that require energy to run, the energy con-
sumption in operation dominates. Indeed Van Ooteghem and Xu
[76] and Ramesh et al. [77] both found that operational energy
accounted for 80e90% of the building impact. Nonetheless, it is
noted that energy is only one part of a bigger picture that includes
energy demands associated with the full life cycle of a data centre,
and the production of GHGs, air pollutants and toxins, as well as
impacts on natural resources, global warming, society and the
economy emost of which are not represented in current meth-
odologies [78].
The IVF Industrial Research and Development Corporation [79]
found 80% of energy and carbon came from the operational phase
of a computer, which can be assumed broadly equivalent to a
server, with the remaining 20% from pre-use and decommissioning,
as shown in Fig. 2. In addition operational figures for a standard 50-
year building life cycle yielded values of between 70 and 80% of the
overall impact [63]. While the figures appear conclusive, by
considering only operational energy future legislation could
recommend old be replaced with new, irrespective of the embodied
impacts that replacements yield.
Work by Mahadevan et al. [63] supports the need to consider
the full life cycle of IT components and data centres. A study into the
life cycle energy use of network switches projected that as network
equipment becomes more operationally efficient, the embodied
stage will play a larger role in the full life cycle. If the embodied
stage is not fully monitored, there could therefore come a point
where it goes unnoticed that it has become the biggest contributor
to the life cycle [21,73]. Indeed the inadequacies of considering only
the operational phase of IT components without full life cycle
studies [80], and consideration of impacts beyond energy
[74,83,84] have both been discussed at length in the literature.
Discussion of the literature emphasises the need to consider all
stages with careful consideration of the degree of accuracy
required.
3.3. The full life cycle impact of data centres
Scientists at HP Labs have led research into the life cycle impact
of data centres, and their work dominates this area. Data centre life
cycle assessment has largely focused on the energy consumption
(embodied and operational) of IT and M&E infrastructures, but
often at the expense of the built structure, generally considered too
small in comparison [63], rarely are all considered together.
Research by Shah et al. [75], however, highlights the need for more
work in this area, suggesting a hybrid approach eas used by Bilec
et al. [29] ethat combines EIO LCA with a process-based analysis to
estimate the full life cycle impact of data centres.
A simplified study by Shah et al. [75],ofafictional data centre
using such a method, found that the IT equipment and cooling
infrastructure contributed the greatest portion to the full life cycle
of each of the four assessed impacts eenergy, global warming
potential (GWP), toxic releases and PM-10 emissions. Unlike when
considering energy, embodied impacts for all infrastructures
B. Whitehead et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 395e405398
(compute, cooling, power and building) were found to be greater
than operational impacts when considering PM-10 pollutants and
toxic releases (Fig. 3), emphasising the complexities associated
with defining one part of the life cycle as the biggest offender [75].
Furthermore, the case study showed that for the built structure,
all embodied impacts were greater than those during operation
[75]. The research also showed that by reducing the amount of IT
equipment (through virtualisation and extended lifetimes),
embodied PM-10 pollutants could be reduced by as much as 20%, as
opposed to only 7% through retrofitting an old structure and leav-
ing the IT equipment as it is [75]. This is important to note, because
it is likely that intution would lead designers to concentrate on the
construction phase where emissions are known to be high.
Further studies by Shah et al. [85] into the sources of variability
in data centre LCA looked to identify parameters that have the
largest influence on the overall environmental impact, and produce
impact factors to simplify the application of LCA to data centres. The
study concluded a similar share of impacts between the embodied
and operational phases, in the same areas of concern as previous
studies [75,82]. Moreover, a comparison of GHG emissions from the
model with three other studies found the impacts were within 15%
of each other. The study concluded main environmental signifi-
cance came from the electricity mix and IT capacity. It also found
that the level of redundancy and thermal management contributed,
but to a lesser extent.
In particular, the relevance of electricity mix found by Shah et al.
[82] is strengthened by the research of Honee [86] in Sweden. The
research found embodied emissions due to capital infrastructure
was 33% of the overall impact [83], much higher than other studies,
because of the clean mix of electricity present in the country.
The Shah et al. [82] study is interesting, because a number of
simple impact factors are created from the results, which have been
validated against previous research. However, in an attempt to
promote the application of LCA in data centre design, the factors
reduce the number of parameters to only those that currently have
influence on the environmental impact of the data centre. This is an
important step, but if used in isolation, eliminates the ability to
continually monitor the total impact, and reduces their applica-
bility as a detailed design tool.
The current limited literature acts as a good foundation for more
detailed benchmarking studies, and agrees that by considering
operational energy alone, the true sustainability of data centres is
not being assessed. These existing studies, however, can be greatly
improved upon with the collection of more detailed data from
existing buildings.
Finally, the literature shows the growing need for comprehen-
sive LCA benchmarking of data centres, and although simplified
impact factors have been created [82], there is still a need for an all-
inclusive approach. This would allow the life cycle impact to be
monitored to ensure shifts in impact do not go unnoticed [35,64],
and if adopted early enough in the design process, could provide
more opportunity to influence the environmental impact [28,87].
4. The application of LCA to BEAMs
One of the main strengths of BEAMs is the award of an end
rating. The greatest concern, however, is their inability to capture
the full life cycle of structures [88], particular in data centres.
Currently, designers of data centres in the UK can only indirectly
consider embodied impacts through use of the BREEAM Green
Guide to specification, which provides life cycle environmental
rankings for the impact of construction materials [2]. The guide,
however, does not include IT equipment which is replaced every
three to five years in a data centre, and which was shown by Shah
et al. [75] to greatly affect environmental impact. Indeed, it does not
consider silicon-based components, which are known to have a
large role to play in the embodied impacts of a data centre [89].
Further scrutiny of the credits shows that credits for IT equip-
ment are awarded in Ene 22 [2] if they are procured and run in line
with the EU Code of Conduct on Data Centres [2], with no consid-
eration of their embodied impacts. The scheme continues to place a
high relevance on health and wellbeing credits, evenin data centres
Fig. 2. Operational and embodied impacts of a computer (a) and a building (b).
Fig. 3. Embodied and operational impacts from Shah et al. study [75].
B. Whitehead et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 395e405 399
with small associated function areas and limited staff, many of
which are prescriptive [16] and considered less reliant on scientific
fact.
Most importantly, although credit Ene 5 [2] allows three credits
for the use of low or zero carbon technologies, it only provides a
single additional exemplar credit if a contract is taken out with an
energy supplier for electricity from a 100% renewable source.
Considering the significance of the electricity mix to the overall
impact of a data centre found by Shah et al. [82] and shown in
section 3.3, this credit allocation appears inadequate.
In response to UKGBC (UK Green Building Council) members
calling for the inclusion of embodied impacts, the most recent
BREEAM Consultation Paper [18] concluded the need to ‘move the
mass market forward in terms of integrating sustainability in the life
cycle of buildings’. Although there was no solution to this at the
beginning of the last decade [17], UK-GBC members were still
debating the issue in 2010. Indeed, members were split between
the award of credits for low embodied carbon strategies, or a rating
system based on LCA [18], and to date no decision has been made.
Trusty and Horst [17], Watson and Jones [90], Cole [1], Haapio
and Viitaniemi [12] and Biswas [91] have all considered the appli-
cation of LCA to generic BEAMs to fully appraise building sustain-
ability. However, Haapio and Viitaniemi [12] concluded that the
transformation of building environmental assessment tools
(including BEAMs) into sustainability assessment tools was still far
from fruition. Many of the studies highlight the need to integrate
such a system into some sort of 3D software and BIM ebuilding
information modelling [87,88] eto streamline the process [16,92],
yet this is only one step in the complex process of applying LCA to a
rating system.
Historically, embodied impacts have been ignored because
operational energy is known to be far greater than embodied en-
ergy [63]. Yet this has meant that other embodied impacts, which
are now shown in the literature to be of significance, have also been
ignored [17,75]. Other barriers to the inclusion of LCA in BEAMs
include the poor quality of LCI data, and the lack of relevant case
studies for benchmarking [17]. However, there is general agree-
ment in the literature that the consensus-based nature of the sys-
tems needs to be removed, along with the use of prescriptive
credits, and the assessment moved to an LCA approach that looks to
minimise life cycle flows [17]. For this to happen, benchmarking is
required.
5. LCA building tools
So far, the review of literature has been concerned with the
omission of LCA from the basis of BEAMs because of one very
important reason: BEAMs provide an end rating for building per-
formance, and it is this aspect that has seen their widespread
adoption. The rating provides an intangible benefit that allows
clients to market their building as sustainable, and command
higher prices for their building stock. Nonetheless, the design team
uses them more as a design tool [1] than a rating method, and for
this reason it is apparent that a tool based on LCA is incredibly
important.
A number of building environmental assessment tools (BEATs)
already exist that focus on LCA and buildings as reviewed by
Forsberg and Malmborg [13], Seo et al. [93], and Haapio and Vii-
taniemi [12]. The strengths and weaknesses in these papers are
discussed below.
Fig. 4. BEES online software [94].
B. Whitehead et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 395e405400
The BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustain-
ability) online software tool, shown in Fig. 4, allows users to assess
the full life cycle environmental and economic impact of over 230
building products and assembly [21,90,94]. Although the tool pro-
vides comprehensive results for a wide range of impact categories
[90], the database is limited and only includes entries for one
building service ethe plumbing system eand omits impacts from
construction and demolition [12,13].
Envest 2 is an online tool from BRE that allows users to assess
the environmental impact and differs from others by including
whole life costing of construction materials and the energy
consumed in operation [95]. Although the tool considers all life
cycle stages [12,90], including estimations for the energy consumed
for heating, cooling, and operating the building, it cannot handle
the energy-specific nature of data centres, and does not include the
embodied impact of the energy consuming components or their
replacement.
In Australia, ENVEST Au is a prototype tool that includes the
same impacts as the UK version, although it has not been based on
Envest 2 [96]. Its interface, shown in Fig. 5, is more sophisticated,
and the energy consumption is inputted by the user as opposed to
being estimated by the tool.
The tool is user-editable to allow for project-specific data, and
contains life cycle economic as well as environmental impacts. The
tool is the most advanced of the options, but only relevant to
buildings in Australia.
Athena Impact Estimator is a free desktop tool that functions
much like ENVEST, and supersedes the Athena EcoCalculator [97].
Users input information on the building geometry to dialogue boxes
as shown in Fig. 6, and the main life cycle stages (apart from the end
of life [90]) for a number of impact categories are assessed. It origi-
nally did not include the use phase [12], but has been improved to
include operational energy consumption. The tool is constrained to
structural components and only has spatial relevance in US and
Canada, but the user does have flexibility to add materials.
The literature reveals many other BEATs including Eco-Quantum
in the Netherlands and EcoEffect in Sweden [88,98], with some
combining existing methods and simulation tools such as BSim
[99]. Some include consideration of the three pillars of sustain-
ability eenvironmental, social and economic efor example SBTool
[96,100] (which assesses the impact of building materials and
operational energy, but not the embodied impact of building
equipment such as servers) and BASF SEEBALANCE from the
chemical industry [101].
Others provide a very basic database and allow for screening
LCAs, for example the ABB tool LCALight [102], whilst others only
consider ICT, like eL-Platform, which focuses on the supply chain
[103] and the Eco-Impact Evaluator by iNEMI [104]. Furthermore,
many are harnessing the benefits of building information model-
ling (BIM) to streamline the process such as the integrated BIM-LCA
model described by Dawood et al. [89] and Russell-Smith and
Lepech [105].
Fig. 5. ENVEST Au [96].
Fig. 6. Athena impact estimator [97].
B. Whitehead et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 395e405 401
More specifically EETCO ean estimation and exploration tool
used to provide qualitative trends of server decisions on the total
cost of ownership [106] elooks at the carbon emissions and cost
implications of data centre design choices, while ASTRO [107]
provides an integrated environment for the assessment of data
centre reliability, dependability, and LCA for power and cooling.
Haapio and Viitaniemi [12] provide the most important con-
clusions on the most useful BEATs, and although the amount of
tools has increased since the study, the outcomes remain largely
unchanged. They conclude the wide differences between the tools,
which satisfy different, needs, different pillars of sustainability, and
assess different types of buildings, in different regions and for
different cultural factors. It is therefore almost impossible to
compare tools and rate one as better than the other. Rather, each
tool is relevant to a specific problem, and it is down to the user to
research and understand these differences [12,13,90]. In cases
where multiple tools are available for the same problem, there is
concern that the tool that provides the most onerous result will be
adopted [12]. If this result is due to errors that are not disclosed,
then it can create a false view of the assessed building [12].
Although there is strong evidence for a number of LCA tools,
none have the full capacity to assess the life cycle impact of a UK
data centre and all the various components contained within it. In
particular, most tools that consider service life use a predicted
lifetime [13], and do not thoroughly assess maintenance and
refurbishment [12]. In data centres, replacement of components is a
large factor in the impact, and its omission/limited inclusion from
tools is a real weakness.
6. Conclusions
The conclusions in this section build on those made in part 1 of
the paper. It is evident from the review of literature, that the data
centre industry is preparing itself for a paradigm shift from one
focused solely on single issues at one point in a facility's lifetime, to
a more holistic whole life approach.
In an attempt to consider more issues, designers have turned to
BEAMs such as BREEAM. BEAMs go beyond metrics to consider
more than one issue, awarding credits for the performance of
buildings against benchmarks within a range of impact categories.
These credits promote reduced environmental impact, and
amongst many other issues, consider embodied impacts (largely
omitted in the metrics) of certain materials used to construct a
building [2]. However, the partial inclusion of life cycle approaches
in BEAMs, which omit ICT equipment that is replaced every three to
five years [66], batteries every ten years and building services every
twenty years [53,108] from life cycle credits, means that BEAMs
could be neglecting a significant part of the environmental picture
that is yet to be fully supported by research. Indeed, there is no
quantitative evidence in the literature that supports the omission of
these components, and as such this approach appears flawed. It is
therefore apparent that there is a need for more detailed bench-
marking of the life cycle impact of data centres.
Moreover, because of the prescriptive nature of these methods,
any design using an approach that is not included in the framework
to reduce a building's environmental impact, could appear less
environmentally sustainable than one with exactly the same
impact but designed according to the BEAM criteria [17]. This is
combated by the option to apply for innovation credits; however,
they are limited in number and time-consuming to achieve.
Furthermore, environmental impacts are interrelated. For
example, improving operational efficiency of the energy con-
sumption could result in higher manufacturing impacts [75].To
consistently assess the interlinked nature of environmental impacts
of a data centre, it is therefore important to consider all potential
impacts, in all life cycle stages and for all components [75]. By doing
this, an understanding can be gained of the effect of an improve-
ment in one life cycle stage, or of the reduction of an emission on
other stages and other emissions.
Although it is clear that data centres are operationally high
energy consumers, the considerable efforts made by the industry to
improve their energy efficiency means that it is quite plausible that
in the future, operational energy use could decrease in proportion
such that the greatest environmental impact in a data centre would
originate from something other than operational energy con-
sumption [63]. Without benchmarks and a method and tools to
monitor this, any shift in impact is likely to go unnoticed [107].In
addition, the increasing prevalence of literature on the application
of LCA to data centres and their components indicates the growing
interest in multi-issue environmental impact over a building's full
life cycle. It is therefore concluded that to support the recent release
of standards aimed at the industry's adoption of LCA, a holistic
approach to monitoring environmental impact, such as life cycle
assessment (LCA), is therefore required [107] to establish environ-
mental hot-spots and evaluate the various trade-offs.
Beyond the benchmarking of the data centre life cycle impact,
there is also the need for a tool for the application of LCA to data
centres, and in particular screening tools to detect trends [109] and
to minimise the risk of negative impacts going undetected.
Research into LCA tools was found in abundance in the litera-
ture, many of which have relevance to whole building design. None,
however, can manage the bespoke nature of data centres, and as a
result it is still difficult for the industry to apply this complex
method in a time-effective manner. It is therefore evident that
there is a need for streamlined tools that are built on comprehen-
sive and detailed frameworks, and that can be used by non-experts.
With these tools in place, data centre life cycle impact can be
optimised at the earliest stages of design, providing the greatest
opportunities to minimise environmental impact. Furthermore, if a
rating system based on LCA is to be achieved, these tools are
imperative to enable mass benchmarking.
6.1. Recommendations
Future work to enable widespread adoption of LCA by the data
centre industry should focus on:
LCA benchmarks for existing data centres using existing data.
Development of a tool that allows non-experts to gain an un-
derstanding of the impact of their facilities in a short period of
time.
Development of an LCA rating system based on benchmarks.
The first part should focus on the development of a life cycle
model for an existing data centre, along with an investigation of the
results achieved from running an LCA of the system. The systems,
sub-systems, components, and materials to be included in the
model need to be established, through the detailed exploration of
the engineering design and operation of data centres. A bill of
quantities (BoQ) should be established for the main infrastructures
of the facility, and an LCA model built using datasets available in
LCA software. Due to the lack of data, proxy data should be used (in
a screening LCA) to enable the industry to understand the general
pattern of impact and provide a basis from which more detailed
assessments can be run in the future.
A key to the wider adoption of LCA, in all industries, is the
availability of more data. For the construction industry, which in-
volves extensive materials and processes, the ease with which this
data can be accessed is imperative. This could be achieved by the
creation of a system in which materials, components, and
B. Whitehead et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 395e405402
machinery are delivered to site with their cradle-to-gate life cycle
impact embedded in a barcode, QR (quick response) code or chip.
Such a system would not only provide information, it would also
advocate more sustainable practices, and create a competitive
sustainable market. Furthermore, as suggested by Norris [110] for
social impacts, the life cycle attributes of materials could be pub-
lished on the semantic web, ‘the web marked up with (searchable)
metadata’[53], making the data both free and available, much like
technical product information is now, when looking for a
component.
The results of the LCA will provide a benchmark for the industry
that goes beyond the detail of current studies to include every
component of the data centre without exception. It will also
establish the basis for a framework to which more detailed and
accurate LCI data can be added as it becomes available. For example,
with the creation of the EDE metric by The Green Grid [111],itis
likely that more manufacturers will conduct detailed LCAs of their
servers to allow them to report on the metric. The resulting data
from these studies can be included in the LCA framework, which
will allow for more accurate vendor-specific assessments.
Importantly, the model will also provide a framework that fa-
cilitates the continual assessment of energy consumption once a
data centre is in operation, and allow users to understand the
impact of componentry refresh over the full life cycle and for
numerous environmental issues. Indeed, servers are often replaced
because of technological obsolescence, as opposed to them reach-
ing their end of life. By providing a framework, the full impact of
this behaviour can be better understood.
The second tranche of work should focus on development of a
tool that links to the LCA model, and enables engineers to consider
the environmental impact of design decisions without opening any
LCA software, therefore greatly reducing the complexity of
completing an assessment. The tool will also enable benchmarking
of further facilities, which are required to ensure a rating system
and facility label can be achieved in the future.
It was noted that current tools cannot assess fully the bespoke
nature of data centres and that they rely heavily on users inputting
each value by hand. Furthermore, web-based tools and those based
on dialogue box data-entry often require more maintenance to
ensure that there are no bugs in the code, and additional user
rights. The aim of the tool should therefore be to provide a simple
way for design engineers and data centre operators to quickly
evaluate the life cycle impact of the decisions they make during the
design and life time of a facility. Aspects of the tool that are
considered important to promote its adoption and reduce its
complexity are therefore:
a computing environment familiar to designers and operators
such as Excel;
easy linking to QS (quantity surveyor) information to eliminate
hand entry of
quantities and costs and to speed up the LCA process;
an environment that allows for continued monitoring
throughout the life cycle,
for example by inputting real-time energy consumption and
material impacts
from system upgrades and refresh during operation; and
a format that requires little additional technical support because
of a minimised
level of coding, and reduced need for dealing with bugs and
software problems.
With a tool established, benchmarks created from its use can be
used to establish an LCA rating system. This will ensure that
facilities with lower life cycle impacts will gain a rating based on its
life cycle impact, irrelevant of how it is achieved.
Finally, it is prudent to note that whilst the aim of the tool is for
the LCA of data centres, its applicability goes far beyond, and in the
future could be applied to all commercial buildings.
Acknowledgements
This paper has been developed with the financial support of the
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) (EP/
H50169X/1) nd HP; who have also gone to great lengths to share
their knowledge and expertise in the fields of data centres and
sustainable IT. Additional support and review of work was provided
by supervisors: Dr Robert Tozer, Dr Alan Dunn and Sophia Flucker.
References
[1] Cole RJ. Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions
and roles. Build Res Inf 2005;35(5):455e67.
[2] BRE. Scheme document SD 5068 issue 1.2: BREEAM data centres; 2010
[Updated: 25/05/2012] Available from: http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/
SD5068_1_1_BREEAM_Datacentres_2010.pdf [accessed: 25.05.10].
[3] Cole RJ. Building environmental assessment methods: a measure of success.
Special issue article in: The Future of Sustainable Construction; 2003.
Available from:, http://www.bcn.ufl.edu/iejc/pindex/ugh/temp/cole.pdf
[accessed 10.11.10].
[4] NABERS. NABERS energy for data centres. Rating your data centre energy;
2012. Available from: http://www.nabers.gov.au [accessed: 12.07.14].
[5] US EPA. Energy star for data centres; 2010. Available from: http://www.
energystar.gov/ [accessed: 12.07.14].
[6] Rivera A. International applications of building certification methods: a
comparison of BREEAM and LEED. In: Quebec City, Canada: proceedings of
PLEA2009 e26th conference on passive and low energy architecture; 2009.
[7] Lee WL, Burnett J. Benchmarking energy use assessment of HK-BEAM,
BREEAM and LEED. Build Environ 2008;43:1882e91.
[8] Lee WL. Benchmarking energy use of building environmental assessment
schemes. Energy Build 2012;45:326e34.
[9] Ng ST, Chen Y, Wong JMW. Variability of building environmental assessment
tools on evaluating carbon emissions. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2013;38:
131e41.
[10] Ding G. Sustainable construction ethe role of environmental assessment
tools. J Environ Manag 2008;86(3):452e64.
[11] Lee WL. A comprehensive review of metrics of building environmental
assessment schemes. Energy Build 2013;62:403e13.
[12] Haapio A, Viitaniemi P. A critical review of building environmental assess-
ment tools. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2008;28(7):469e82.
[13] Forsberg A, Malmborg FV. Tools for environmental assessment of the built
environment. Build Environ 2004;39:223e8.
[14] Kaatz E, Root DS, Bowen PA, Hill RC. Advancing key outcomes of sustain-
ability building assessment. Build Res Inf 2006;34(4):308e20.
[15] Pope J, Annandale D, Morrison-Saunders A. Conceptualising sustainability
assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2004;24:595e616.
[16] Fenner RA, Ryce T. A comparative analysis of two building rating systems.
Part 1: evaluation. Proc Inst Civil Eng eEng Sustain March 2008;161(1):
55e63 [ES1].
[17] Trusty WB, Horst S. Integrating LCA tools in green building rating systems;
2002. Available from: http://web.stanford.edu/group/narratives/classes/08-
09/CEE215/ReferenceLibrary/Green%20Materials/Integrating%20LCA%
20Tools%20in%20Green%20Building%20Rating%20Systems.pdf [accessed:
11.07.14].
[18] UKGBC. BREEAM consultation; August 2010. The final report from the UK-
GBC consultation with members on the future direction of BREEAM (2010)
Available from: http://www.ukgbc.org/resources/publication/uk-gbc-
consultation-response-breeam [accessed 12.07.14].
[19] Hacking T, Guthrie P. A framework for clarifying the meaning of triple
bottom-line, integrated and sustainability assessment. Environ Impact
Assess Rev 2008;28:73e89.
[20] UN Division for Sustainable Development. Johannesburg plan of imple-
mentation. III. Changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and pro-
duction; 2004. Available from: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/
WSSD_POI_PD/English/WSSD_PlanImpl.pdf [accessed: 08.09.11].
[21] Rajagopalan N, Bilec MM, Landis AE. Life cycle assessment evaluation of
green product labelling systems for residential construction. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 2012;17(6):753e63.
[22] Baumann H, Tillman A-M. The hitch hiker's guide to LCA. Sweden: Studen-
tlitteratur AB; 2009.
[23] Shah A, Lugo W, Patel C. Thermodynamics-based object-oriented environ-
mental design of an industrial air conditioner. In: San Francisco, California,
USA: proceedings of the ASME 2009 heat transfer summer conference; 2009.
B. Whitehead et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 395e405 403
[24] ISO. BS EN ISO 14040:2006 environmental management. Life cycle assess-
ment. Principles and frameworks. London: BSI; 2006.
[25] McCormack M, Treloar GJ, Palmowski L, Crawford R. Modelling direct and
indirect water requirements of construction. Build Res Inf 2007;35(2):
156e62.
[26] Dixit MK, Fernandez-Solis JL, Lavy S, Culp CH. Identification of parameters for
embodied energy measurement: a literature review. Energy Build
2010;42(8):1238e47.
[27] Rebitzer G, Ekvall T, Frischknecht R, Hunkeler D, Norris G, Rydberg T, et al.
Life cycle assessment. Part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, in-
ventory analysis, and applications. Environ Int 2004;30(5):701e20.
[28] Hilton B, Williamson A. Using surrogate LCAs to drive early design decisions;
2012. Available from: http://lcacenter.org/lcaxii/final-presentations/595.pdf
[accessed: 28.08.12].
[29] Bilec M, Ries R, Matthews HS, Sharrard AL. Example of a hybrid life-cycle
assessment of construction processes. J Infrastruct Syst 2006;12(4):207e15.
[30] Chang Y, Ries RJ, Lei S. The embodied energy and emissions of high-rise
education building: a quantification using process-based hybrid life cycle
inventory model. Energy Build December 2012;55:790e8.
[31] Carnegie Mellon. Economic input output life cycle assessment; 2011. Avail-
able from: http://www.eiolca.net [accessed: 31.01.12].
[32] Weidema B, Wenzel H, Peterson C, Hansen K. The product, functional unit
and reference flows in LCA; 2004. Available from: http://www.norlca.org/
resources/777.pdf [accessed: 31.05.11].
[33] Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B. A survey of unresolved problems in life
cycle assessment. Part 1: goal and scope and inventory analysis. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 2008;13(4):290e300.
[34] Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B. A survey of unresolved problems in life
cycle assessment. Part 2: impact assessment and interpretation. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 2008;13(5):374e88.
[35] Curran MA. Life cycle assessment: a review of the methodology and its
application to sustainability. Curr Opin Chem Eng 2013;2013(2):1e5.
[36] CALCAS. D20 Blue paper on life cycle sustainability analysis. Revision 1 after
the open consultation. Deliverable 20 of work package 7 of the CALCAS
project; 2009. Available from:, http://www.estis.net/includes/file.asp?
site¼calcas&file¼112344A1-6247-48F7-8F79-66EE4CAFB4F8 [accessed:
23.03.11].
[37] CALCAS. D17 Final report: options for deepened and broadened LCA. Deliv-
erable (D17) of work package 3 (WP3) CALCAS project; 2009. Available from:
,http://www.estis.net/includes/file.asp?site¼calcas&file¼B501D8D5-ADC1-
4DBA-8EFC-71A764FCFE5A [accessed: 24.03.11].
[38] CALCAS. D15 ea scientific framework for LCA. Deliverable (D15) of work
package 2 (WP2) CALCAS project; 2009. Available from:, http://fr1.estis.net/
includes/file.asp?site¼calcas&file¼631CC8B9-1C62-49FC-A2FD-
AE82940D0C82 [accessed: 24.03.11].
[39] Kl€
opffer W. The role of SETAC in the development of LCA. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 2006;11(1):116e22.
[40] Grießhammer R, Buchert M, Gensch C-O, Hochfeld C, Manhart A, Reisch L,
et al. PROSA eproduct sustainability assessment guideline; 2007. Available
from: http://www.prosa.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/leitfaden_eng_final_
310507.pdf [accessed: 23.06.11].
[41] Kl€
opffer W. Life cycle sustainability assessment of products (with comments
by Helias A. Udo de Haes, p.95). Int J Life Cycle Assess 2008;13(2):89e95.
[42] Swarr TE, Hunkeler D, Kl€
opffer W, Pesonon H-L, Ciroth A, Brent AC, et al.
Environmental life cycle costing. A code of practice. Florida: Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC); 2011. p. 1e89.
[43] Finkbeiner M, Schau EM, Lehmann A, Traverso M. Towards life cycle sus-
tainability assessment. Sustain 2010;2(10):3309e22.
[44] Valdivia S, Ugaya CML, Hildenbrand J, Traverso M, Mazijn B, Sonnemann G.
A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment eour
contribution to RIOþ20. Int J Life Cycle Assess November 2012.
[45] Hunkeler D. Societal LCA methodology and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2006;11(6):371e82.
[46] Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild M. Methodologies for social
life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2008;13(2):96e103.
[47] Reitinger C, Dumke M, Barosevcic M, Hillerbrand R. A conceptual framework
for impact assessment within SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2011;16(4):380e8.
[48] Weidema BP. The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle
impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2006;11(1):89e96.
[49] Grießhammer R, Benoît C, Dreyer LC, Flysj €
o A, Manhart A, Mazijn B, et al.
Feasibility study: integration of social aspects into LCA; 2006. Available from:
https://biblio.ugent.be/record/512499 [accessed: 23.02.11].
[50] Benoît-Norris C, Cavan DA, Norris G. Identifying social impacts in product
supply chains: overview and application of the social hotspot database.
Sustain 2012;4(9):1946e65.
[51] UNEP SETAC. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products; 2009.
Available from: http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1164xPA-
guidelines_sLCA.pdf [accessed: 04.02.11].
[52] Hunkeler D, Rebitzer G. Life cycle costing epaving the road to sustainable
development? Int J Life Cycle Assess 2003;8(2):109e10.
[53] BSI. BS ISO 15686-5:2008 buildings &constructed assets eservice life
planning epart 5: life cycle costing. London: BSI; 2008.
[54] Heijungs R, Settanni E, Guin
ee J. Toward a computational structure for life
cycle sustainability analysis: unifying LCA and LCC. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2013;18(9):1722e33.
[55] Hunkeler D, Lichtenvort K, Rebitzer G, editors. Environmental life cycle
costing. Florida: SETAC; 2008.
[56] Swarr TE, Hunkeler D, Kloppfer W, Pesonon H-L, Ciroth A, Brent AC, et al.
Environmental life-cycle costing: a code of practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2011;16(2011):389e91.
[57] Rebitzer G, Hunkeler D. Life cycle costing in LCM: ambitions, opportunities,
and limitations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2003;8(5):253e6.
[58] Cooper J, Kahn E. Commentary on issues in data quality analysis in life cycle
assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2012;17(4):499e503.
[59] Rack M, Valdivia S. Life cycle impact assessment ewhere we are, trends, and
next steps: a late report from a UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative workshop
and a few updates from recent developments. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2013;18(7):1413e20.
[60] Prek M. Environmental impact and life cycle assessment of heating and air
conditioning systems, a simplified case study. Energy Build 2004;36(10):
1021e7.
[61] Lettieri DJ, Shah AJ, Carey VP. Exergy-based environmental design of a
computer room air conditioning unit. In: Lake Buena Vista, Florida, USA:
proceedings of the ASME 2009 international mechanical engineering
congress &exposition; 2009.
[62] Hannemann CR, Carey VP, Shah A, Chandrakant P. Lifetime exergy con-
sumption as a sustainability metric for enterprise servers. In: Jacksonville, Fl,
USA: Proceedings of the ASME 2nd international conference on energy
sustainability; 2008.
[63] Mahadevan P, Shah A, Bash C. Reducing lifecycle energy use of network
switches. In: Washington, USA: Proceedings of 2010 IEEE international
Symposium on sustainable systems and Technology (ISSST); 2010.
[64] Bribian IZ, Capilla AV, Uson AA. Life cycle assessment of building materials:
comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of
the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Build Environ 2011;46(5):
1133e40.
[65] SCI. SCI publication 182. A comparative environmental life cycle assessment
of modern office buildings; 1998. Available from: http://www.thenbs.com/
publicationindex/DocumentSummary.aspx?PubID¼509&DocID¼248697
[accessed: 23.11.11].
[66] Liu M, Baizhan L, Yao R. A generic model of exergy assessment for the
environmental impact of building lifecycle. Energy Build 2010;42:1482e90.
[67] Verbeeck G, Hens H. Life cycle inventory of buildings: a calculation method.
Build Environ 2010;45(4):1037e41.
[68] Passer A, Kreiner H, Maydl P. Assessment of the environmental performance
of buildings: a critical evaluation of the influence of technical building
equipment on residential buildings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2012;17(9):
1116e30.
[69] BSI. BS EN 50600-2-1:2014. Information technology edata centre facilities
and infrastructures. Part 2-1: building construction. London: BSI; 2014.
[70] Carpenter A, Jambeck JR, Gardner K, Weitz K. Life cycle assessment of end-of-
life management options for construction and demolition debris. J Ind Ecol
2012;17(3):396e406.
[71] Martinez E, Nu~
nez Y, Sobaberas E. End of life of buildings: three alternatives,
two scenarios. A case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2013;18(5):1082e8.
[72] ISO. BS EN ISO 14044:2006 environmental management. Life cycle assess-
ment. Requirements and guidelines. London: BSI; 2006.
[73] BSI. BS EN 15978:2011 sustainability of construction works eassessment of
environmental performance of buildings ecalculation method. London: BSI;
2011.
[74] The Green Grid. Data centre life cycle assessment guidelines. White Paper
#45, v2; 2012. Available from: http://www.thegreengrid.org/library-and-
tools.aspx [accessed: 20.11.12].
[75] ETSI. Environmental engineering (EE); life cycle assessment (LCA) of ICT
equipment, networks and services; general methodology and common re-
quirements. France: ETSI; 2011.
[76] Van Ooteghem K, Xu L. The life cycle assessment of a single-storey retail
building in Canada. Build Environ March 2012;49:212e26.
[77] Ramesh T, Prakash R, Shukla KK. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an
overview. Energy Build 2010;42(10):1592e600.
[78] Shah A, Bash C, Sharma R, Cristian T, Watson BJ, Patel C. The environmental
footprint of data centers. In: San Francisco, USA: proceedings of IPACK; 2009.
[79] IVF Industrial Research and Development Corporation. European commis-
sion DG TREN preparatory studies for eco-design requirements of EuPs. Lot
3: personal computers (desktops and laptops) and computer monitors. final
report (task 1e8); 2007. Available from:, http://extra.ivf.se/ecocomputer/
downloads/Eup%20Lot%203%20Final%20Report%20070913%20published.pdf
[accessed: 29.09.10].
[80] Shah A, Christian T, Patel C, Bash C, Sharma R. Assessing ICT's environmental
impact. Computer 2009;42(7):91e3.
[82] Watson BJ, Sharma RK, Charles SK, Shah AJ, Patel CD, Marwah M, et al.
Creating a sustainable IT ecosystem: enabling next-generation urban in-
frastructures. In: Phoenix, Az, USA: proceedings of 2009 IEEE international
symposium on sustainable systems and technology. ISST '09; 2009.
[83] Shah A, Krishnan N. Optimization of global data center thermal management
workload for minimal environmental and economic burden. IEEE Trans
Components Packag Technol 2008;31(1):39e45.
[84] Shah A, Meckler M. An exergy-based framework for assessing sustainability
of IT systems. In: San Francisco, California, USA: Proceedings of ES2009,
Energy sustainability; 2009.
B. Whitehead et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 395e405404
[85] Shah A, Chen Y, Bash CE. Sources of variability in data center lifecycle
assessment. In: Boston, MA, USA: proceedings of IEEE international sympo-
sium on sustainable systems and technology (ISSST); 2012.
[86] Honee C, Hedin D, St-Laurent J, Froling M. Environmental performance of
data centres ea case study of the Swedish National Insurance Administra-
tion. In: Berlin, Germany: proceedings of Electronics Goes Green 2012þ
(EGG); 2012.
[87] Haapio A, Viitaniemi P. Environmental effect of structural solutions and
building materials to a building. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2008;28(8):
587e600.
[88] Mateus R. Chapter 3 euse of rating systems in the process towards sus-
tainable construction; 2011. Available from: http://repositorium.sdum.
uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/15447/1/chapter%203.pdf [accessed: 05.01.12].
[89] Meza J, Shih R, Shah A, Ranganathan P, Chang J, Bash C. Lifecycle-based data
center design. In: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: proceedings of the
ASMEE 2010 international mechanical engineering congress &exposition;
2010.
[90] Watson P, Jones D. Redefining life cycle for a building sustainability assess-
ment framework. In: Sydney, Australia: proceedings of sustainability mea-
sures for decision-support fourth Australian life cycle assessment
conference; 2005.
[91] Biswas T, Wang T-H, Krishnamurti R. Framework for sustainable building
design through sustainable building ratings integration; 2009. Available
from: http://repository.cmu.edu/architecture/47/ [accessed: 17.01.11].
[92] Dawood S, Lord R, Dawood N. Development of a visual whole life-cycle en-
ergy assessment framework for built environment. In: Austin, TX, USA:
proceedings of the 2009 winter simulation conference; 2009.
[93] Seo S, Tucker S, Ambrose M, Mitchell P, Wang CH. Technical evaluation of
environmental assessment rating tools (PN05.1019); 2005. Available from:,
http://www.fwpa.com.au/rd-and-e/market-access/210-technical-
evaluation-of-environmental-assessment-rating-tools.html [accessed:
15.11.10].
[94] NIST. BEES: description/summary; 2009. Available from: http://www.nist.
gov/el/economics/BEESSoftware.cfm [accessed: 11.06.13].
[95] BRE. Envest 2; 2013. Available from: http://envest2.bre.co.uk/account.jsp#
[accessed: 11.06.13].
[96] Edge environment. ENVEST Available from: http://clarityenv.com.au/envest/
[accessed: 11.06.13].
[97] Athena. Athena impact estimator for buildings v4.2 software and database
overview; 2013. Available from: http://calculatelca.com/wp-content/
uploads/2011/11/ImpactEstimatorSoftwareAndDatabaseOverview.pdf
[accessed: 12.06.13].
[98] Mateus R, Braganca L. Sustainability assessment and rating of buildings:
developing the methodology SBToolPT-H. Build Environ 2011;46(10):
1962e71.
[99] Pederson F, Hansen K, Wittchen KB, Grau KE, Johnsen K. Combining building
thermal simulation methods and LCA methods. In: Copenhagen, Denmark:
proceedings of the 8th symposium on building physics in the Nordic
Countries; 2008.
[100] Larsson N. User guide to the SBTool assessment framework; 2012. Available
from: http://www.iisbe.org/system/files/SBTool%202012%20user%20guide%
2026Oct12.pdf [accessed: 11.06.13].
[101] Saling P, Kircherer A, Dittrich-Kramer B, Wittlinger R, Zombik W, Schmidt I,
et al. Eco-efficiency analysis by BASF: the method. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2002;7(4):203e18.
[102] Dantes. LCALight (last updated: 23/10/2006) Available from: http://www.
dantes.info/Tools&Methods/Software/webbasedtools_LCALight.html
[Accessed: 26/05/2011].
[103] Okuhara K, Tsuda H, Shibuya K, Tsubaki H. Development of eL-Platform by ICT
and knowledge acquisition for estimation. In: Bangkok: proceedings of 2012
tenth international conference on ICT and knowledge engineering; 2012.
[104] Alcatel-Lucent TO, Cisco JM, Arnold J. Data assessment and collection for a
simplified LCA tool. In: Orlando. Fl, USA: proceedings of carbon management
technology conference; 2012.
[105] Russell-Smith S, Lepech M. Activity-based methodology for life cycle
assessment of building construction. In: London, UK: proceedings of CIBSE
ASHRAE technical symposium; 2012.
[106] Hardy D, Sideris I, Sazeides Y. EETCO: a tool to estimate and explore the
implications of datacenter design choices on the TCO and the environmental
impact. In: Porto Alegre, Brazil: proceedings of workshop on energy-efficient
computing for a sustainable world in conjunction with the 44th annual IEEE/
ACM international symposium on microarchitecture (Micro-44); 2011.
[107] Silva B, Callou G, Tavares E, Maciel P, Figueiredo J, Sousa E, et al. ASTRO: an
integrated environment for dependability and sustainability evaluation.
Sustain Comput: Inf Syst 2013;3(1):1e17.
[108] CIBSE. Guide M: maintenance engineering and management (CIBSE guide
M). London: CIBSE; 2008.
[109] Kl€
opffer W. Global life cycleimpact assessments of material shifts. Theexample
of a lead-free electronics industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2011;16(3):283e4.
[110] Norris GA. Social impacts in product life cycles. Towards life cycle attribute
assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2006;11(1):97e104.
[111] The Green Grid. Electronics disposal efficiency (EDE): an IT recycling metric
for enterprises and data centers. White Paper #53; 2013. Available from:
http://www.thegreengrid.org/library-and-tools.aspx [accessed: 07.03.13].
B. Whitehead et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 395e405 405
