Session Chair

Profile Photo
Offline
René Itten Wädenswil, CH
  • 0

    Posts

  • 0

    Comments

  • 199

    Views

Session Info

Session Title: Life Cycle Innovation in the Urban Environment

Date: 26.08.2020

Time: 3:15 – 3:45pm

Session Type: tba

Session Abstracts

Presenter

Profile Photo
Offline
René Itten Wädenswil, CH
  • 0

    Posts

  • 0

    Comments

  • 199

    Views

Co-Author

Matthias Stucki

Abstract

Football is a popular sport, all you need are a few players, a ball and a turf sports field (TSF). However, TSFs are not just grass, they are a precisely defined and constructed building consisting of natural or artificial grass. The city of Zurich wants to reduce the primary energy consumption as well as the greenhouse gas emissions per inhabitant and the TSFs are examined for potential greenhouse gas emission as well as primary energy savings. For this purpose, the life cycle environmental impacts of the various types of TSFs were analysed and compared.

We collected primary data on the whole life cycle of TSFs in collaboration with the TSF experts constructing and maintaining the TSFs in the city of Zurich. Based on these data we compiled life cycle inventory models for two different natural and artificial TSFs as well as a hybrid variant covering all life cycle phases. The Life Cycle Impact Assessment covers all the midpoint indicators recommended by the Joint Research Council of the European Commission for the organisational and product environmental footprint (Fazio et al., 2018) as well as ecological scarcity (Frischknecht et al., 2013).

The construction of natural TSFs, with or without drainage, has the lowest environmental impacts per square meter for all midpoints. The construction of hybrid or artificial TSFs (unfilled or filled) have significantly higher environmental impact because large quantities of synthetic materials are required.
During operation, the environmental impacts are significantly higher for natural TSFs compared to artificial TSFs especially with regard to eutrophication, because of the required fertiliser and the emissions of its application.
However, the most important factor for the environmental impacts are the annual usage hours. Footballers can use artificial and hybrid turf for significantly longer periods per year compared to natural TSFs. Therefore artificial TSFs have a significantly lower environmental impact per usage hour.

The annual usage hours are the decisive factor for the life cycle environmental impacts of TSFs. However, the annual usage hours have a high variation not only depending on the type of TSF but also on the infrastructure. The annual usage hours for TSFs without lighting are significantly lower than the theoretical annual usage hours. Furthermore, there is a hierarchy of TSFs used by football clubs, e.g. the TSFs used for training are used more intensively but have a significantly lower quality compared to the TSFs used for championship matches.

References:

Fazio, S., Castellani, V., Sala, S., Schau, E., Zampori, L., & Diaconu, E. (2018). Supporting Information to the Characterisation Factors of Recommended EF Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method. Ispra, Italy: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability.

Frischknecht, R., Büsser Knöpfel, S., Flury, K., Stucki, M., & Ahmadi, M. (2013). Ökofaktoren Schweiz 2013 gemäss der Methode der ökologischen Knappheit. Methodische Grundlagen und Anwendung auf die Schweiz. Bern: Bundesamt für Umwelt BAFU.

Presenter

Profile Photo
Offline
Leyla Lardja @ leylal
  • 0

    Posts

  • 0

    Comments

  • 154

    Views

Co-Author

Christophe Abrassat

Abstract

LCA has proven its worth in improving the performance and efficiency of green building design : science-based Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods are increasingly being used to analyse the environmental impact of construction materials and products, for instance for EPD, LEED and Net Zero certification (Al-Ghamdi & Bilec, 2015; Means & Guggemos, 2015). Still, its penetration in the professional standard practice is low whether it’s in North America or Europe. Main reasons are the lack of knowledge, time consumption for data harvest, and methodologies, especially in the early stage of design, but also some organisational factors related to the specificity of the construction sector which requires strong coordination between numerous actors (Jusselme, Rey, & Andersen, 2018; Olinzock et al., 2015).

However, the field of “Life Cycle Innovation” is gaining interest among scholars and practitioners as has proven the Life Cycle Innovation Conference initiative. This new perspective of LCA as a driver for innovation rather than as a design constrain opens the way to explore and introduce this tool in a more imaginative and playful way. We saw here a great opportunity to stimulate the learning process of the professionals and to foster interdisciplinary teams’ creativity in early stage of design, by the use of a LCA-based serious game. Our hypothesis is that well designed gamification devices can provide a powerful experimental framework to overcome cognitive fixation factors alongside life cycle thinking in green building design.

In this communication we will present a LCA and Life Cycle Thinking based serious game developed and experimented in 2019 in green building codesign sessions in Montreal (Quebec – Canada). The experimentation was performed with professionals of a leading Montreal based Architecture firm, and also with LCA students and practitioner as a base for comparison. In order to evaluate the effects and outcomes of these gamified workshops on practitioners’ cognitive (de)fixation, we also performed various interviews before and after the sessions.

References:

Jusselme, T., Rey, E., & Andersen, M. (2018). Findings from a survey on the current use of life-cycle assessment in building design. PLEA 2018-Smart and Healthy within the 2-Degree Limit, 1(CONF).

Means, P., & Guggemos, A. (2015). Framework for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Based Environmental Decision Making During the Conceptual Design Phase for Commercial Buildings. Procedia Engineering, 118, 802–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROENG.2015.08.517

Agogué, M., Levillain, K., & Hooge, S. (2015). Gamification of creativity: exploring the usefulness of serious games for ideation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(3), 415–429.

Olinzock, M. A., Landis, A. E., Saunders, C. L., Collinge, W. O., Jones, A. K., Schaefer, L. A., & Bilec, M. M. (2015). Life cycle assessment use in the North American building community: summary of findings from a 2011/2012 survey. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(3), 318–331.

Presenter

Profile Photo
Offline
Leonie Mantz Lüneburg, DE
  • 0

    Posts

  • 0

    Comments

  • 99

    Views

Co-Authors

Lea Schmitz

Karolin Gathen

Joscha Wintjen

Hans Theo Friedlinghaus

Lauritz Urnauer

Sven Müller

Abstract

How sustainable is a Tiny House and the connected lifestyle? A student´s group work from Leuphana University Lüneburg designed their project work to find a solution to that question. Tiny Houses are an arising trend for new housing that enable people to live in a minimalistic way in a house on a trailer but are not legally defined or normed yet. A Tiny House is usually constructed with a relatively small layout of roughly 6m°2 space but can vary in size. In big cities in Germany, where rising rents and overpopulation are a well observed phenomenon a Tiny House can be considered as a cheap and practical solution of the problems.
Therefore, we conducted a life cycle assessment (LCA) according to ISO 14040 of a Tiny House. We gathered the data from a representative Tiny House conducted from a constructor in the north of Germany. We only used the data of one Tiny House, so we use the case study method. In a second step we conducted from the obtained results an environmental product declaration (EPD) according to ISO 14025. Furthermore, our Tiny House is categorized as a product of the construction industry, therefore we formatted our EPD according to EN 15804.

For the EPD we analyzed the different phases of an EPD: the resources, the manufacturing of a Tiny House, the usage, maintenance and the recycling of the different materials used. We selected a timeframe for the usage of the Tiny House of 20 years, which we compare to other ways of life with a similar time frame.
During our scientific work and data collection we discovered many missing data in the field of new sustainable housing in which we categorize the Tiny House as well.
Finally, in our presentation we do not only want to focus on the quantitative results obtained from the LCA and the EPD but also to initiate new research direction into the field of sustainable lifestyles. In the time of overcrowded cities and growing populations all over the world we aim to start the process of filling the existent data gaps.

©2020 Forum for Sustainability through Life Cycle Innovation e.V. | Contact Us | Legal Info

CONTACT US

If you would like to get in touch with us, please feel free to send us a message. Thank you very much in advance.

Sending

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account

X
X
X
X
X