Available via license: CC BY 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS
The influence of EPD data on LCA results
To cite this article: B Tozan et al 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1078 012105
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
You may also like
Superior properties and behaviour of
coatings produced on nanostructured
titanium by PEO coupled with the EPD
process
Lokeshkumar E, Saikiran A, B Ravisankar
et al.
-
MWCNT Modified Composite Pencil
Graphite Electrodes Fabricated by Direct
Dripping and Electrophoretic Deposition
Methods: A Comparison Study
Qing-Gong Zhu, Amat Ngilmi Ahmad
Sujari and Sulaiman Ab Ghani
-
Effect of Processing Parameters on
Electrophoretically Deposited ZnO
Nanoparticles on Conductive Fabrics
Yoonsung Chung, Hyejin Park, Sung-baek
Cho et al.
-
This content was downloaded from IP address 185.246.172.68 on 15/09/2022 at 06:51
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012105
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012105
1
The influence of EPD data on LCA results
B Tozan1, E Stapel1, C Sørensen1, H Birgisdóttir1
1BUILD – Department of the Built Environment, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers
Vænge 15, 2450 Copenhagen, Denmark
bto@build.aau.dk
Abstract. The built environment is responsible for reaching global climate targets such as the
Paris agreement and carbon neutrality in 2050. It is a well-known fact that buildings stand for
37% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, where 10% is due to emissions from the
production of building materials, while the remaining 27% comes from energy consumption [1].
The awareness of the major contribution to global GHG emissions from the built environment
has enabled a great interest in developing more sustainable buildings, reducing the contribution
to GHG emissions, and conducting life cycle assessments (LCA) of buildings in Denmark. In
March 2021 a national strategy towards more sustainable buildings was introduced, which
requires an LCA of new buildings, and compliance with the limit value of 12 kg CO2e/m2/year
for new buildings with > 1000 m2. The strategy underlines the urgency of educating the Danish
construction sector in conducting LCAs of new buildings and gaining knowledge in
environmental product declarations (EPD) available for the Danish sector to apply. Eventually,
this will enable more specific and transparent LCA results of Danish buildings. We investigate
the availability and applicability of EPDs from a Danish perspective in the first part of the study,
and in the second part, we investigate the influence on LCA results when applying industry- or
product-specific data instead of generic data (Ökobau 2020 II). Three exterior wall types A, B
and C are outlined based on the same U-value, and generic data are replaced with EPD data. The
results show the various combinations possible with applying the EPD data. Secondly, the LCA
results are highly dependent on the chosen materials and their corresponding EPD data.
Keywords: Construction materials, Life Cycle Assessment, Global warming potential,
Environmental Product Declaration (EPD), Data
1. Introduction
In March 2021 the Danish government presented a new strategy for more sustainable buildings in
Denmark, which will be integrated into the building regulations from 2023. Two important aspects of
the strategy shall be recognized for this study: the mandatory LCA requirement for all new buildings
and compliance with a limit value of 12 kgCO2e/m2/year for all new buildings with heated floor area
greater than > 1000 m2 [2]. The benchmark value is determined based on life cycle assessments of 60
new buildings and the scope includes life cycle modules A1-3, B4, B6, and C3-4 [3].
Compliance with the limit value will be an essential aspect for building practitioners in Denmark,
and many resources may be spent on it. This might lead to practitioners demanding more EPDs to
achieve more precise and correct life cycle assessments for buildings and building elements.
Life cycle assessments are useful to determine environmental impacts associated with the production,
construction, and demolishing of whole buildings [4]. It is however also useful in the early design stages
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012105
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012105
2
of building design to estimate the potential environmental impacts that will occur. In the early design
stages of a building, multiple design scenarios of the building elements can be considered, and decisions
based on environmental assessments can be made. In this regard, generic data is evident to use to
estimate the potential environmental impacts. Later in the design process, where materials of the
building elements are being specified, the generic data can be replaced by industry and product-specific
environmental product declarations (EPDs). This will enable a more precise life cycle assessment, more
correct results, and therefore, a well-established basis for decision making. Eventually, the LCA results
of buildings based on a wide variety of EPD data will enable the determination of more correct limit
values.
Whether the generic data in the LCA model of the building element can be replaced by specific
EPDs, depends on the availability of EPDs for buildings designers to apply in the assessments, and it is
yet unclear, what influences the replacement of data has on the results of the assessments. The variations
in environmental impacts across EPDs have been investigated by [5] and [6]. In the first study by
Moncaster and Anderson, it was found that there is a great variation in environmental impacts from the
product stage (A1-3) of several cement types. Moreover, it was found that especially white cements
contribute significantly to the product stage. The second study by Rasmussen et al, which considers 81
EPDs for wood products, found that the global warming potential depends on the type of wood product.
Especially, the density of the wood and the chosen end-of-life scenario were found to be crucial for the
final environmental impact. This paper aims to investigate what influence the use of EPDs has on LCA
results compared to results based on generic data for three exterior wall types denoted Exterior walls A,
B, and C. In addition, the study aims at clarifying for the Danish construction industry how to choose
products wisely when designing buildings to clarify where potential reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions can be made.
2. Method
Before describing the procedure for conducting life cycle assessments of the walls, it is important to
understand how to apply EPDs in the correct context. In continuation of the studies by Moncaster et al
and Rasmussen et al, a preliminary investigation based on product-specific EPDs of insulation materials
is conducted in this study. The results in Figure 1 show 26 EPD datasets (some EPDs declare more than
a single product) for insulation materials.
The insulation materials have been differentiated according to the thermal conductivity, λ, and the global
warming potential is reported per square meter of insulation material. From the graph, it is seen that the
Figure 1. LCA results for insulation materials with varying thermal conductivities based on EPD
datasets. The results indicate the global warming potential reported in kg CO2e/m2 insulation material
for modules A1-3 and C3-4. B4 is not included as no replacements take place.
0,00
0,25
0,50
0,75
1,00
1,25
1,50
1,75
2,00
2,25
2,50
2,75
3,00
3,25
3,50
3,75
4,00
kgCO2e/m2
ʎ = 0.030 (2)
ʎ = 0.032 (2)
ʎ = 0.033 (1)
ʎ = 0.034 (4)
ʎ = 0.036 (1)
ʎ = 0.037 (9)
ʎ = 0.038 (4)
ʎ = 0.039 (2)
ʎ = 0.041 (1)
EPD average
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012105
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012105
3
GWP results for insulation materials with λ = 0.037 W/(mK) vary from 0.44 to 3.7 kg CO2e/m2, which
indicates that there is a great variation in the results. In addition, one cannot compare the range from λ
= 0.037 W/(mK) with λ = 0.034 W/(mK) although it might look like λ = 0.034 W/(mK) might indicate
lower GWP. This is because the insulation materials do not have equal thermal conductivity. Only
insulation materials with equal thermal conductivity can be compared in the figure. Comparability must
be ensured when life cycle assessments for building elements are conducted. The LCA practitioner must
consider provided functions from the materials, especially insulation, and from this figure alone there
cannot be decided on which product to implement in the building.
With the findings of the preliminary study, an indication of potential variations of results is
illustrated, and that comparability must be ensured before decision making. This is considered in the
following analysis of the exterior walls.
2.1. The exterior walls and functional equivalent
The building elements considered in the study are three types of exterior walls. They are based on the
conventional walls built in Denmark and an illustration of the composition of the walls is given in Figure
2. The separation of layers of the walls is inspired by [7].
To be able to compare three wall types and different types of materials within a single wall, a functional
equivalent (FU) is defined as “Calculate the LCA result for 1 m2 exterior wall with U-value of 0.16
W/(m2K) reported in kgCO2e/m2 (GWP) with a reference study period of 50 years.”
This functional equivalent is applied for all three wall types. It is important to notice that the FU only
considers the service life of the materials and the U-value of the walls. Thus, properties in terms of fire
and sound insulation are not considered in this study. The service life of the materials is greater than the
reference study period of 50 years except for paint, which is applied every 15 years.
The U-value is calculated based on the thermal conductivity of each material in each layer. For
materials providing cladding and structural functions, one value of thermal conductivity is assumed,
while for insulation materials it changes depending on the specific products as shown in Figure 1.
2.2. Scope of the life cycle assessment
Life cycle assessments in Denmark consider the life cycle modules A1-3, B4, B6, and C3-4. As this
study only considers building elements, the global warming potential associated with module B6 is not
included, thus, the results in the following sections include the global warming potential associated with
modules A1-3, B4, and C3-4.
Figure 2. Illustration of the exterior walls A, B, and C considered in the study.
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012105
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012105
4
2.3. LCA software tool
The study is conducted with the national Danish life cycle assessment tool, LCAbyg 5.2, which is
developed for users in the Danish construction industry [8] [9]. The tool contains generic environmental
data from the German Ökobau.dat 2020 database. It is however possible to apply EPDs in the tool.
2.4. Data scenarios
To support the aim of the study, two data scenarios for the LCAs are considered. In the first scenario,
the global warming potential with generic data is calculated for all three wall types only. This scenario
only includes data from Ökobau.dat, therefore, it is denoted as the Ökobau scenario. Here only a single
result for each material of the exterior wall is found as only a single dataset is considered for each type
of material. Generic data is according to the definition in Ökobau modeled based on literature, expert
knowledge, etc. [10].
The second scenario replaces generic data, where it is possible, with industry- and/or product-specific
EPDs, which were the output of the first part of the study [11]. Here, the availability of EPDs was
investigated for Danish construction. Since multiple EPDs can be applied to a material, this can result
in more than one LCA result. For this second scenario, industry- and product-specific EPDs are
considered.
Industry-specific EPDs are conducted by industry associations and companies based on the data on
the industrial production of companies [10]. E.g., if the construction wood industry association jointly
publishes an environmental product declaration of concrete or construction wood, this would be
considered an industry-specific EPD. If the association is formed by national companies, the EPD will
represent national conditions, and can therefore represent the environmental impacts more precisely than
generic data that currently are applied in life cycle assessments of Danish buildings.
Product-specific EPDs are published by manufacturers to document environmental impacts
associated with a product from one factory [10]. The product can be either a single specific product or
a product offered in several sizes, weights, colors, etc.
2.5. Material variants
In addition to the data scenarios, several variations in materials are also outlined for each wall type for
the exterior surface, the middle layer, the inner (bearing) wall, and the interior surface. This is done to
achieve an indication of possible combinations in terms of materials but also EPD-datasets. The goal
behind this is to show how many possible outputs an LCA can result in due to several applicable EPDs,
and therefore several LCA results.
The EPD datasets applied in the study, are considered representative of the materials. It has not been
possible to apply EPDs for each material where no EPD has been available, in that case, generic data
has been retained. Those materials which cannot be replaced with EPDs are not shown in the results.
Table 1. Overview of the material variations in the exterior walls divided into four layers. The
composition of the walls is based on conventional wall types built in Denmark [12].
Wall
Material
variation
Exterior
surface
Middle soft
layer
Inner bearing
wall
Interior
surface
Exterior
wall A
Variant 0
Brick
Stone wool
Brick
Mortar and paint
Variant 1
-
Cellulose fiber
-
-
Variant 2
-
Glass wool
-
-
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012105
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012105
5
Variant 3
-
Wood fiber
-
-
Exterior
wall B
Variant 0
Brick
Stone wool
Concrete
Mortar and paint
Variant 1
Wood
Cellulose fiber
Aerated concrete
-
Variant 2
Slate
Glass wool
Lightweight
concrete
-
Variant 3
Aluminum
Wood fiber
-
-
Variant 4
Steel
-
-
-
Variant 5
Fibre cement
-
-
-
Exterior
wall C
Variant 0
Wood
Stone wool
Wood frame
Plasterboard,
mortar, and paint
Variant 1
Slate
Cellulose fiber
CLT
-
Variant 2
Aluminum
Glass wool
-
-
Variant 3
Steel
Wood fiber
-
-
Variant 4
Fiber cement
-
-
-
3. Results
Figure 3 shows the global warming potential reported in kg CO2e/m2 for each applicable material of
exterior walls A, B, and C for both the first and second scenarios. Thus, the figure does not show the
total embodied carbon of the walls. It rather shows the variation in environmental impact from various
materials and the possible combinations. The first scenario, Ökobau, denoted with the grey cross, results
in a single value for each material. And the second scenario shows each EPD dataset applicable for each
material type. Here, the average of the EPDs is also shown with the red triangle. The number of EPD
datasets available and applicable for each material of exterior walls A, B, and C can be seen on the
graphs, which are given in the parentheses in the legend. It is evident from the graphs that there are
variations in the environmental impacts of the materials, thus, several possible LCA results for exterior
walls A, B, and C. This will be further elaborated on in the following sections.
3.1. Variations due to type of material
From Figure 3 it is evident that the global warming potential of the environmental product declarations
varies both across each material and within each material. This can be seen when comparing e.g., bricks
and glass wool. Naturally, this leads to many potential material combinations, and therefore, several
potential LCA results for exterior walls A, B, and C. For that reason, the results are highly dependent
on the choices of whoever decides which materials to construct with. It should be kept in mind that for
some materials, only a single EPD has been available, which limits the extent of the results for those
materials.
Variations in results due to changes in material properties are also indicated in the figure. For
instance, the EPDs for bricks document two ranges in density, 1600-2000 kg/m3 and 1800-2050 kg /m3,
from which the minimum, mean and maximum values are used in the study. This follows a great
variation of LCA results for the bricks ranging from 13.2-118.2 kgCO2e/m2. Additionally, the
environmental impact of the types of insulation also varies, which might indicate the differences in the
thermal conductivity shown previously in Figure 1 or the material itself.
Furthermore, the processes in the production of the materials can also influence the environmental
impact. For instance, the bricks included in this study are either fired with natural gas or with biogas
which influences the overall environmental impact, thus, while 1 tonne of bricks fired with natural gas
emits 216 kgCO2e, 1 tonne of bricks fired with biogas emits 143 kgCO2e in the Product stage (A1-3).
This example is from an EPD that declares bricks with the same density fired with natural gas and
biogas. Notice that these exact numbers of the emissions are specific for two products and must not be
assumed equal to other brick production, as the emissions can be different.
Finally, the EPD ranges show that potential reductions in the global warming potential can be
achieved if products with lower environmental impacts are chosen in the building design.
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012105
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012105
6
3.2. Variations due to the data scenario
Another important observation that appears from the figure, is that the EPD datasets do not necessarily
always imply environmental benefits since the Ökobau result is either above, inside, or under the EPD
ranges. For instance, the Ökobau result in exterior wall A is, in general, greater than the EPD datasets
for stone wool, cellulose fiber, and wood fiber, however, for brick, mortar, and glass wool the Ökobau
result is within the EPD range. In some cases, the Ökobau result approximates the EPD average, in other
cases, it is far from the EPD average, and finally, in some cases it lower than the EPD average.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
kgCO2e/m2
Exterior wall A U-value = 0.16 W/(m2K)
Brick, mi n. density (24)
Brick, av e. density (24)
Brick, ma x. density (24)
Mortar (5)
Stone wo ol (5)
Cellulosefibre (1)
Glass wool (13)
Woodfibre (7)
Plaster (1)
EPD average
Ökobau
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
kgCO2e/m2
Exterior wall B U-value = 0.16 W/(m2K)
Brick, av e. density (24)
Mortar (5)
Screws, fittings (2)
Pine wood (4)
Plasterboard (12 )
Fibre cement board (4)
Stone wo ol (5)
Cellulose fibre (1)
Glass wool (13)
Wood fibre (7)
Concrete C30/37 (2)
Lightweight concrete (4)
Reinforcing steel (1)
Plaster (1)
Construction wood (8)
EPD average
Ökobau
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012105
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012105
7
Figure 3. LCA results are based on the functional equivalent defined for exterior walls A, B, and C.
The graphs show the variations in LCA results across and within each material found with EPD
datasets (number of datasets given in parentheses), the Ökobau result, and the EPD average.
Therefore, the graphs do not give a single LCA result for the walls, as it demonstrates the several
possible combinations, and thus, several possible LCA results.
3.3. Representativeness of the EPD
It is interesting to investigate if potential differences in the GWP result occur, due to the type of EPD
the product is documented with. For instance, the global warming potential of the concrete C30/37 and
lightweight concrete in exterior wall B, are both documented with industry-specific EPDs. Thus, the
data corresponds to the average emissions of Danish concrete (C30/37) and lightweight concrete. It is
evident in the results for exterior wall B in Figure 3 that the concrete result in lower GWP compared to
the Ökobau result, while lightweight concrete results in greater GWP.
The fiber cement boards, shown for both exterior walls B and C, are documented with product-
specific EPDs and result in greater GWP compared to Ökobau. However, the plasterboards included for
exterior wall C, which is also documented with product-specific EPDs, approximates the Ökobau result
even though 12 different EPD datasets are included.
The above implies that replacing EPDs with generic data do not necessarily entail a lower
environmental impact in the case of global warming potential.
4. Discussion
Considerations regarding the availability, applicability, and quality of EPDs will be elaborated on as
well as how EPDs can influence the state-of-the-art practices of professionals in the construction
industry. Moreover, the importance of publishing EPDs in the future as limit values are integrated into
building regulations in several EU member states is discussed.
4.1. Scope of the assessment
It is important to note that this study is limited due to the number of EPDs available and applicable to
Danish conditions. Therefore, the results could differ if additional EPDs were available to replace
generic data. The data collection of this study is based on [13], where the availability of the EPDs is
investigated to understand, how many and which products are represented, and which are still missing.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
kgCO2e/m2
Exterior wall C U-value = 0.16 W/(m2K)
Plasterboard (12 )
Form work, construction wood (8)
Pine wood (4)
Fibre cement board (4)
Steel profiles (1)
Stone wo ol (5)
Cellulose fibre (1)
Glass wool (13)
Wood fibre (7)
Construction wood (8)
CLT (2)
Plasterboard, fire resistant (1 )
Screws, fittings (2)
EPD average
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012105
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012105
8
Furthermore, the results of the study might change if additional environmental impact categories
from EN15804:2013+A1 are considered [14].
4.2. Decision making as a building design professional
Several parameters are relevant for an advising building design professional to consider before the owner
of the building can make an informed decision on a specific combination of either exterior walls A, B,
or C. The advisor must consider, the type of material, the properties of the material, and which material
supplier or manufacturer to purchase from to achieve a holistic decision regarding the environmental
impact. This is especially a relevant task if only product-specific EPDs are considered. The decision
made will influence the overall environmental impact of the building, and potentially, the compliance
with the CO2 limit in the building regulation.
4.3. Quality of the EPD data
Undoubtedly, the quality of the EPD data influences the LCA results. Generic data enable estimations
of environmental impacts from buildings both in the early design stages and in scenarios where no EPD
data is developed. Generic data such as the Ökobau.dat offers great coverage of construction products
and has in many years been applied in life cycle assessment in Denmark, however since it is a German
database it is also applied in DGNB and BNB in Germany [15]. The generic data of Ökobau.dat have
been crucial to estimating environmental impacts from Danish buildings, and this has supported the
development of benchmarks in the Danish building regulation. Nevertheless, as more EPDs are
published, generic environmental data should be replaced by them to enhance the transparency of the
materials integrated into the building and the correctness of the LCA results. This can be done by
replacing generic data with industry-specific EPDs, which represent the average conditions of the
considered nation, and with product-specific EPDs, which represent individual products. Eventually,
life cycle assessments will reflect the actual conditions and thus the environmental impact of the
building.
The findings of the study regarding the replacement of Ökobau data with EPDs can be transferred to
conditions in e.g., Germany. Similar results might be achieved since generic data represents data from
literature or expert knowledge, and therefore, the specification of the data will deviate from it.
4.4. Data applicability during design stages
Preliminarily, the building design professional, who is the LCA practitioner conducting the life cycle
assessment, can apply generic data in the early design stages simply to estimate the potential
environmental impact. Then, design stages before and during the final design of the building, where it
approximates the as-built scenario, the LCA practitioner can replace the generic data with industry and
product-specific EPDs. Product-specific EPD can be preferred over industry-specific EPDs to achieve
more correct and realistic results. If no EPD exists, the generic data should be retained.
Usually, developers or building design professionals already have procurement agreements with
specific material manufacturers, therefore, it might be possible to identify specific EPDs, which
document the products of the procurement agreements, and apply them in life cycle assessments of the
early design stage.
The professionals of the construction sector must adapt to working with EPDs to firstly, clarify
potential environmental benefits and secondly, to motivate material manufacturers to transition to more
environmentally friendly production or more recycling. Eventually, the environmental impact will
become a competitive parameter and force many manufacturers to improve their production.
4.5. Reduction potentials
Another important finding is underlined with the results of the graphs in Figure 3 given the variations
of the EPD ranges. The EPD ranges show which products seem to contribute with the lowest impact
while still fulfilling the same function. When results are considered as in Figure 3, the differences across
the products become more transparent which support the LCA practitioner in advising the owner of the
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012105
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012105
9
building in deciding on the most environmentally friendly product. Eventually, this will lead to
reductions in the embodied carbon of buildings. Thus, applying EPDs instead of generic data can
enhance the transparency in a potential reduction in environmental impacts. However, the availability
and applicability of EPD data will be crucial if building design professionals and their customers are
going to make more environmentally friendly choices based on well-established data.
4.6. Relevance in the coming building regulations
Denmark is not the only member state in the EU planning to implement CO2 limit values in building
regulations. France, Finland, and Sweden have either integrated or planning to implement a CO2 limit in
the building regulations. In January 2022 France introduced CO2 limit values for residential buildings,
where the limit value is 640 and 740 kg CO2e/m2 for detached/attached and collective housing,
respectively, in the embodied carbon regulation for new buildings, RE2020 [16]. The limit values are
tightened gradually from 2021 to 2030. And the assessments in France will include each life cycle
module [17]. Finland and Sweden are planning on limit values to be integrated in the years 2025 and
2027, respectively [18]. Potentially more member states will follow the development.
Compliance with the limit values will be crucial for the professionals of the construction industry in
several states, and for that reason, EPDs that enhance the transparency, and the correctness of the results
will be in high demand. An issue can arise when EPDs result in greater environmental impacts compared
to generic data. A main idea of the environmental product declarations is to document environmental
impacts from materials, which allows comparisons in environmental performances across materials.
This will become a competitive parameter between manufacturers of the materials, which will result in
encouragement to environmentally enhance building materials. Therefore, building design professionals
and the owners of buildings will most likely expect EPDs to result in lower environmental impacts
compared to generic data. However, the graphs in Figure 3 show the possibility of EPDs resulting in
greater environmental impact compared to generic data. This can result in building design professionals
applying generic data instead of EPDs, which can then influence the correctness and transparency of the
life cycle assessments conducted according to the building regulations.
5. Conclusion
The study investigates the potential influence on LCA results when generic data from Ökobau.dat is
replaced with industry- or product-specific environmental product declarations. This is done with
exterior wall types A, B, and C, two data scenarios, and several variations in materials. The study
clarifies that many combinations of the walls due to the several EPD datasets occur, and therefore, the
LCA results depend on the context and the combination of the data. Additionally, the material properties,
the type of product, and the manufacturing processes can influence the results. Thus, in a decision-
making context, the LCA practitioner must consider several parameters for the owner of the building to
make a holistic decision.
The study further underlines that the availability and applicability of environmental product
declarations are crucial to achieving transparent and more correct and precise life cycle assessment
results. Especially, as limit values are being implemented in building regulations, which building design
professionals of the built environment must comply with.
Finally, the study finds that EPDs can enhance the transparency in a potential reduction in
environmental impacts from building elements or buildings in general. Though, to support this more
EPDs must be available and applicable to the building.
References
[1] Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction 2020 Global Status Report for Buildings and
Construction
[2] Ministry of the Interior and Housing 2021 National Strategy for Sustainable Construction
[3] Zimmermann R K, Andersen C E, Kanafani K and Birgisdottir H 2021 Whole Life Carbon
Assessment of 60 buildings Possibilities to develop benchmark values for LCA of buildings
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012105
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012105
10
(BUILD Report 2021:12)
[4] Birgisdottir H and Rasmussen F N Introduction to LCA of Buildings 2016
[5] Anderson J and Moncaster A 2020 Embodied carbon of concrete in buildings, Part 1: analysis
of published EPD Build. Cities 1 198–217
[6] Rasmussen F N, Andersen C E, Wittchen A, Hansen R N and Birgisdóttir H 2021
Environmental Product Declarations of Structural Wood: A Review of Impacts and Potential
Pitfalls for Practice Build. 2021, Vol. 11, Page 362 11 362
[7] Kanafani K, Zimmermann R K, Rasmussen F N and Birgisdóttir H 2019 Early Design Stage
Building LCA using The LCAbyg Tool: New Strategies For Bridging The Data Gap IOP
Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 323 012117
[8] Birgisdottir H and Rasmussen F N 2019 Development of LCAbyg: A National Life Cycle
Assessment Tool for Buildings in Denmark IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 290 1–8
[9] Kanafani K, Zimmermann R K, Rasmussen F N and Birgisdóttir H 2021 Learnings from
Developing a Context-Specific LCA Tool for Buildings—The Case of LCAbyg 4 Sustain.
2021, Vol. 13, Page 1508 13 1508
[10] Figl H and Kusche O 2021 ÖKOBAUDAT Manual Technical and formal information and
rules for the ÖKOBAUDAT database Version 2.1
[11] Stapel E B, Tozan B, Birgisdóttir H and Sørensen C G 2022 Environmental Product
Declarations – an extensive collection of availability, EN15804 revision and the ILCD+EPD
format Accept. to sbe22 berlin Sustain. Built Environ. D-A-CH Conf.
[12] Danish Energy Agency U-værdikatalog
[13] Jørgensen E B, Tozan B, Birgisdóttir H and Sørensen C G 2021 Tilgængelighed og betydning
af EPD’er: En analyse der bygger på tilgængeligheden af specifikke miljødata
repræsentativt for det danske marked og indflydelsen af disse på LCA-resultater
[14] British Standards Institution 2012 CEN. EN 15804:2013+A1—Sustainability of Constructions
Works—Environmental Product Declarations—Core Rules for the Product Category of
Construction Products
[15] Arfvidsson J, Bjelke-Holtermann B, Mattsson J, Ling W, Liu S, Zhu X, Frischknecht R,
Ramseier L, Yang W, Birgisdottir H, Chae C U, Lützkendorf T, Passer A, Balouktsi M, Berg
B, Bragança L, Butler J, Cellura M, Dixit M, Dowdell D, Francart N, García Martínez A,
Gomes V, Gomes Da Silva M, Guimaraes G, Hoxha E, Wiik K, König H, Llatas C, Longo S,
Lupíšek A, Martel J, Mateus R, Rasmussen F N, Ouellet-Plamondon C, Pomponi F,
Pulgrossi L, Röck M, Satola D, Verdaguer S, Szalay Z, Nhu A T, Veselka J, Volf M, Zara O,
Ageco G and Montreal C Comparison of the greenhouse gas emissions of a high-rise
residential building assessed with different national LCA approaches-IEA EBC Annex 72
[16] Ministère de la Transition Ecologique 2021 Décret n° 2021-1004 du 29 juillet 2021 relatif aux
exigences de performance énergétique et environnementale des constructions de bâtiments
en France métropolitaine
[17] Röck M, Sørensen A, Steinmann J, Lynge K, Horup L H, Tozan B, Le Den X and Birgisdottir
H 2022 Towards embodied carbon benchmarks for buildings in Europe - #1 Facing the data
challenge
[18] Toth Z, Reviewed J V, Jeffries B, Milne C, Sibileau H, Stambler M, Steuwer S, Rapf O and
Fabbri M 2021 Whole-Life Carbon: Challenges and Solutions for Highly Efficient and
Climate-Neutral Buildings Build. Perform. Inst. Eur.
