DOI: 10.1111/jiec.

13465

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Environmental performance of eco-design strategies applied to

the building sector

Kikki Lambrecht Ipsen1 Massimo Pizzol2 Morten Birkved3 Ben Amor1

1
Interdisciplinary Research Laboratory on
Sustainable Engineering and Ecodesign Abstract
(LIRIDE), Civil and Building Engineering
The application of eco-design principles in the building sector is considered a promising
Department, University of Sherbrooke,
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada way to mitigate its substantial environmental impacts. However, quantitative evidence
2
Department of Sustainability and Planning, for this mitigation potential is lacking. The objective of this study was to quantify the
Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
environmental performance of diverse eco-design strategies when applied to the build-
3
Department of Green Technology, University
of Southern Denmark, Odense-M, Denmark
ing sector. A macroscale model capable of simulating the future demand for housing
and related material flows within the urban building stock was developed based on an
Correspondence
existing building stock model. These material flows were used to build inventories for a
Kikki Lambrecht Ipsen, Interdisciplinary
Research Laboratory on Sustainable consequential life cycle assessment and, in turn, to quantify the potential environmen-
Engineering and Ecodesign (LIRIDE), Civil and
tal consequences of introducing eco-design strategies in the building sector, assessed
Building Engineering Department, University
of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke QC J1K2R1, across 16 impact categories. Model outputs have a high level of uncertainty but are still
Canada. Email:
useful for decision-making, given the model’s simplicity and transparency. The main
kikki.lambrecht.ipsen@usherbrooke.ca
results show that impact reductions can be obtained from specific uses of wood and
Editor Managing Review: Mikhail Chester wooden products, for example, when used for the walls in high-rise buildings, whereas
using hempcrete for partition walls increases the impact. Although the use of adapt-
ability or disassembly strategies can reduce impacts, this pay-off can only be obtained
after a long period of implementation. In summary, the present study provides new
quantitative insights into the ability of eco-design strategies to mitigate environmental
impacts in the building sector.

KEYWORDS
bio-based materials, direct reuse, industrial ecology, shared socioeconomic pathways, time-
dependency, urban development

1 INTRODUCTION

The building sector is responsible for 38% of total global energy-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, whereas the industry devoted to the
production of building materials is responsible for 10% of total emissions (United Nations Environment Programme, 2020). Moreover, the building
sector is a substantial consumer of virgin materials, as it uses approximately half of all the resources extracted worldwide (de Wit et al., 2018;
Krausmann et al., 2018). A potential impact-mitigation strategy is eco-design, which systematically includes environmental aspects in the design and

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Industrial Ecology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Industrial Ecology.

556 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jiec Journal of Industrial Ecology 2024;28:556–572.

 15309290, 2024, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13465 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
IPSEN ET AL . 557

development phases to lower adverse environmental impacts throughout the lifecycle of a building (ISO, 2020). Strategies relevant to eco-designing
buildings aim to reduce energy and material consumption as well as waste generation (Ipsen et al., 2021).
The potential environmental benefits of these strategies are typically quantified while contextually decoupled, that is, quantifying an individual
eco-design strategy’s application to a single type of building element or building (Aye et al., 2012; Buyle et al., 2019; Eckelman et al., 2018; Minunno
et al., 2020). For example, Andersen et al. (2020) studied the use of recycled/reused material on building façade elements, and Eberhardt et al. (2018)
studied the effects of designing a concrete office building for disassembly. Furthermore, studies have often focused exclusively on the assessment
of a single environmental impact category, such as GHG emissions (Andersen et al., 2020; Aye et al., 2012; Malmqvist et al., 2018; Rasmussen
et al., 2020). This narrow focus on quantifying the environmental performance of eco-design strategies results in poor generalizability and, at times,
conflicting conclusions. For example, Aye et al. (2012) concluded that no reduction in embodied energy was achieved when a concrete building
structure was replaced with wood, whereas Malmqvist et al. (2018) found considerable reductions in embodied energy and GHG emissions when
structural elements were replaced with timber.
Another limitation of existing studies on the eco-design of buildings is that they do not provide sufficiently detailed temporally explicit decision
support; that is, they do not account for the inherent time dependencies of eco-design strategies. This temporal dimension is important because it
can lead to misinterpretation of environmental benefits, especially for new designs and technologies. For example, Minunno et al. (2020) concluded
that designing a building for the reuse of building components, rather than the recycling of individual materials, after the end of service could reduce
environmental impacts by more than 80% in four of six assessed impact categories over the entire lifecycle of the building. However, because of the
long service life of buildings, potential environmental savings from reusing building components will occur far into the future, and not accounting
for the future societal context might lead to an overly optimistic view of what can be achieved on a shorter timescale. Making it possible to reuse
building components can also lead to an increased initial impact (Aye et al., 2012; Eckelman et al., 2018), and the potential reductions in impact are
dependent on the estimated service life of the building as well as the estimated number of reuse cycles for each component (Eberhardt et al., 2018;
Eckelman et al., 2018).
Finally, it is difficult to scale up the results of existing studies for uses of policy development because the scale of assessment differs across
studies. For example, in some cases, a “one-building-at-a-time scale” is used, that is, one eco-design strategy is applied to one building of a specific
type (Eberhardt et al., 2018; Malmqvist et al., 2018; Minunno et al., 2020; Rasmussen et al., 2020). In contrast, other studies have analyzed in such a
way that the eco-design strategy is exclusively represented by the use of specific building components (Andersen et al., 2020; Aye et al., 2012; Buyle
et al., 2019; Eckelman et al., 2018). Therefore, if an eco-design strategy is applied on a larger scale (i.e., to multiple types of buildings using varying
building components), the results for a limited number of building types and components would not be representative.
Given the above-mentioned limitations of existing studies, it is necessary to assess the environmental performance of eco-designed buildings in a
way that yields large-scale and temporally explicit results. Dynamic building stock models, which estimate elementary flows in a building stock over
time, are a relevant approach. Some existing models focus on identifying the evolution of the building stock itself, either historically (Aksözen et al.,
2017; Kleemann et al., 2016; Reyna & Chester, 2014) or by discussing potential future evolution (Lausselet et al., 2020; Olaya et al., 2017; Sandberg
et al., 2016). Yet, the majority focus on estimating material or energy flows (Heeren & Hellweg, 2018; Kleemann et al., 2016; Lausselet et al., 2020,
2022; Marinova et al., 2020; Reyna & Chester, 2014; Sandberg et al., 2017, 2021; Stephan & Athanassiadis, 2017). Moreover, some models include
environmental aspects either by introducing an intensity factor, such as CO2 -eq per m2 (Lausselet et al., 2022; Reyna & Chester, 2014; Stephan &
Athanassiadis, 2017), or by coupling the model with a life cycle assessment (LCA) (Heeren & Hellweg, 2018). However, a common characteristic of
the existing models is the evident need for input data to estimate the dynamics of the building stock and the resulting development of elementary
flows.
The objective of the present study was to quantify the environmental performance of applying eco-design strategies in the building sector from
a dynamic and macroscale perspective across multiple building types and impact categories. This was achieved by expanding an existing building
stock model (Marinova et al., 2020) and coupling it with a consequential LCA, thereby creating a customized modeling approach in which the ability
of several eco-design strategies to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of buildings could be ranked according to their efficiency at the macro
scale.

2 METHOD AND MODEL DEVELOPMENT

To assess the environmental performance of the eco-design strategies, the city of Montreal (Quebec, Canada) was selected as a case study (Support-
ing Information S1 [Appendix SI-1]). The study’s scope was limited to residential buildings based on the availability of relevant data. Only eco-design
strategies affecting a building’s embodied impacts (i.e., construction, material use, and waste management) were included, as the past focus on
reducing operational energy use in buildings has been fruitful and has now resulted in the increasing importance of the embodied impacts (Lessard
et al., 2018; Malmqvist et al., 2018).
 15309290, 2024, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13465 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
558 IPSEN ET AL .

2.1 Model inventory

2.1.1 The building stock model

The building stock model quantifies the elementary flows, material input, and generated waste related to three types of changes to the building
stock: Newly-constructed-housing, Housing-transformations, and Housing-demolitions. Newly-constructed-housing is the construction of new residen-
tial buildings. Housing-transformations is the transformation of existing buildings’ layout by adding or removing interior walls. Housing-demolitions
is the demolition of existing residential buildings, and for this type of change, only generated waste was quantified. Newly-constructed-housing was
estimated according to three building archetypes (Table 1, I):

∙ detached houses: one- or two-family houses not connected to any other building(s);
∙ apartment buildings: triplexes, row houses, and other apartment structures of six stories or lower;
∙ high-rise buildings: apartment structures of seven stories or higher.

The building stock model consists of two parts: the material intensities, that is, the amount of material per area of the provided living space, and
the future demand (for the three changes to the building stock), that is, the area of required living space per year. The output of the building stock
model was the life cycle inventory (LCI), which was compiled by multiplying the material intensities by their corresponding future demands. The LCIs
thus contain the material demand (or elementary flows) needed to fulfill the future demand for Newly-constructed-housing, Housing-transformations,
and Housing-demolitions (Figure 1, output; Table 1, VI; Supporting Information S2, Appendix SI-15). The method developed by Marinova et al. (2020)
was used to estimate the material intensities and demand for Newly-constructed-housing, but the demand was adjusted to account for the need for
new housing arising from the demolition of existing buildings (Figure 1). The estimation and assumptions associated with the demand for Housing-
transformations and Housing-demolitions, as well as the use of the output of the building stock model as LCIs for a consequential LCA (Section 2.2),
are unique to this study.
The material intensities were extrapolated from case studies of nine different residential buildings constructed in North America (Bossink &
Brouwers, 1996; Kumar et al., 2015; Lefebvre, 2004; Mosteiro-Romero et al., 2014; Reyna & Chester, 2014; Reza et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2014)
(Figure 1, step 6; Table 1, V; Appendix SI-2 and Appendix SI-14 of the Supporting Information). Thereby, the material intensities represented all
materials necessary to construct a building, that is, reinforced concrete, wood, plasterboards, etc.
The demand for Newly-constructed-housing was estimated by multiplying three social parameters: population-projection (potential future growth
in the number per capita), population-share (the fraction of people per building archetype), and lifestyle-factor (available m2 of housing per capita)
(Marinova et al., 2020). The multiplication of the three parameters estimated future housing-need (Figure 1, step 3; Table 1, IV; Appendix SI-5 of
Supporting Information S1), while the demand for Newly-constructed-housing was estimated as shown in Figure 1, step 5 (Table 1, IV; Appendix
SI-8). Population-projection was estimated from the shared socioeconomic pathway (SSP) scenarios (IIASA, 2018) (Figure 1, step 2; Appendix SI-4).
SSP2 was chosen as a base because it is a middle-of-the-road scenario where future socioeconomic trends do not differ noticeably from histori-
cal patterns (Riahi et al., 2017). Lifestyle-factor and population-share were presumed based on historical data and current trends (Figure 1, step 1;
Appendix SI-3).
The potential future demand for Housing-transformations and Housing-demolitions was extrapolated from a compilation of building permits
granted in Montreal from 1990 to 2020 (Ville de Montréal, 2021) (Figure 1, steps 4 and 5; Table 1, IV; Appendix SI-6). Lifestyle-factor, population-
share, demand for Housing-transformations and Housing-demolitions, and the parameters used to estimate the demand (e.g., amount of demolition
permits) were kept constant throughout the study to avoid obscuring the influence of the eco-design strategies, which would have contradicted the
purpose of this study.
To delineate the range of error propagation and the corresponding result uncertainty, the worst- and best-case scenarios were included for the
assessed LCIs (Table 1, VII). For the material inputs, a one-at-the-time sensitivity analysis was conducted for the five materials where the use of
a specific background process was deemed the most uncertain, for example, a background process that represents the use of a specific material
produced at a specific location. These materials were insulation, wood/gypsum boards, steel, aluminum, and concrete (Appendix SI-9 of Supporting
Information S1). Through this analysis, the CO2 -eq when using various background processes for the five materials was determined. The worst-
case scenario included the background processes for the five materials with the highest CO2 -eq per kg, whereas the best-case scenario included
the background processes with the lowest CO2 -eq per kg. For the generated waste, assumptions were made for waste management strategies, con-
sidering a possible waste management strategy for each material. These strategies included landfilling for all materials in the worst-case scenario
and recycling for the materials where possible in the best-case scenario.
 IPSEN ET AL .

TA B L E 1 Overview of the variables used in the building stock model to compile the life cycle inventories needed as input for the consequential life cycle assessment.

Variable Symbol/Equation Unit Value Time dependency

I: Building archetypes
Detached houses D N/A N/A N/A
Apartment buildings A N/A N/A N/A
High-rise buildings H N/A N/A N/A

II: Other variables

Year Y N/A N/A N/A
Eco-design strategy Qualitative N/A Time-dependent

III: Social parameters

Population-share Ps (d, a, h) % 33.3 Constant
Lifestyle-factor L (d, a, h) m2 /capita 40 Constant
Population-projection Pp(y) capita/year Appendix SI-4 Time-dependent

IV: Demand for changes to the building stock

Housing-need H(y)(d, a, h) = Ps(d, a, h) ⋅ L(d, a, h) ⋅ Pp(y) m2 /year Appendix SI-5 Time-dependent
Transformation permits Pt No. 32,978 Constant
Demolition permits Pd 9,827 Constant
Increase in housing units Un 164,529 Constant
Pd
Newly-constructed-housing Dn(y)(d, a, h) = H(y)(d, a, h) ⋅ (1 + ) m2 /year Appendix SI-8 Time-dependent
Un
Pt
Housing-transformations Dt = H(2025)(total) ⋅ 1,772,649 Constant
Un
Pd
Housing-demolitions Dd = H(2025)(total) ⋅ 528,226 Constant
Un

V: Material intensities
MI_New-material MI_Nm (d, a, h) amount/m2 Appendix SI-2 Time-dependent
MI_New-waste MI_Nw (d, a, h)
and
MI_Trans-material MI_Tm
MI_Trans-waste MI_Tw Appendix SI-14

MI_Demo-waste MI_Dw

(Continues)
559

15309290, 2024, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13465 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 560

TA B L E 1 (Continued)

V: Material intensities

VI: Lifecycle Inventory

New-material Newmaterial = Dn(y)(d, a, h) ⋅ MI_Nm (d, a, h) amount/year Appendix SI-15 Time-dependent
New-waste Newwaste = Dn(y)(d, a, h) ⋅ MI_Nw (d, a, h)
Trans-material Transmaterial = Dt ⋅ MI_Tm
Trans-waste Transwaste = Dt ⋅ MI_Tw
Demo-waste Demowaste = Dt ⋅ MI_Dw
VII: Worst- and best-case scenarios for the material intensities
Worst-case scenario Best-case scenario
Material input The background processes with the highest impact for the five The background processes with the lowest impact for the five materials where the
materials where the use of a specific background process was use of a specific background process was deemed most uncertain
deemed most uncertain
Generated waste It was assumed that all materials are landfilled It was assumed that as many materials as possible are recycled
VIII: The average results from the worst- and best-case scenarios
Results best-case scenario rbest N/A
Results worst-case scenario rworst N/A
rbest + rworst
Average results Rmean = N/A
2

Note: In the “Time dependency” column, “Constant” means that the variable is independent of time, whereas “Time-dependent” means that the variable is dependent on time either as a function of time or as a
variable that is constant but changes from one constant to another at a given moment. The values are either based on assumptions or estimated as described in Section 2.1.1.
IPSEN ET AL .

15309290, 2024, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13465 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 15309290, 2024, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13465 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
IPSEN ET AL . 561

1000 x number of people

250
Yearly popula on
growth
150

50

-502020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

F I G U R E 1 Illustration of the building stock model used to generate the life cycle inventory for the consequential life cycle assessment. LCI, life
cycle inventory.

2.1.2 Modeling of eco-design strategies

Given the focus on embodied impacts, four eco-design strategies were assessed: material selection/substitution, design for manufacturing and assembly,
design for adaptability (DfA), and design for disassembly (DfD). The narrative of each eco-design strategy was translated into scenarios fitted for the
model (henceforth referred to as “eco-design scenarios”) through detailed information from the literature describing each strategy. The LCIs created
as described in Section 2.1.1 (henceforth referred to as the business-as-usual [BAU] scenario) were altered based on the eco-design scenarios,
thereby creating new LCIs (Table 2).
 562

TA B L E 2 Eco-design scenarios in relation to the eco-design strategy they represent.

Eco-design scenario
Eco-design strategy name Description Model variable(s) affected Building archetype
Business-as-usual BAU All material intensities, waste management strategies, and N/A N/A N/A
demands for changes to the building stock remain as
outlined in Section 2.1.1 and the corresponding SI.
Material Wood_structure The structure is changed from concrete to wood (for the MI_Nm (d, a, h) N/A High-rise
selection/Substitution apartment building archetype the structure is already
wood). Consequently, there is an increase in the use of MI_Nw (d, a, h)
gypsum.
Wood_walls The structure remains concrete (for the apartment building MI_Nm (d, a, h) Apartment High-rise
archetype it remains wood), while all walls (both interior
and exterior) are made from wood or wooden products.a MI_Nw (d, a, h)
Hempcrete_walls The structure is changed to wood (for the apartment MI_Nm (d, a, h) Apartment High-rise
building archetype, the structure is already wood),
whereas walls (both interior and exterior, except exterior MI_Nw (d, a, h)
cladding) are made from hempcrete (Heidari et al., 2019;
Sinka et al., 2018).
Design for manufacturing Prefab The generated waste from newly constructed housing is MI_Nw (d, a, h) Apartment High-rise
and assembly reduced by 15% (Lu et al., 2021).
Design for adaptability DfA The interior walls are configured as plug-and-play systems, Dn(y)(d,a,h) Apartment High-rise
and material intensities for new construction do not
change. The demand for housing-demolition decreases, Dt
whereas that for housing-transformations increases.
Before 2070, only buildings not designed for adaptability Dd
are transformed, while after 2070, only buildings
designed for adaptability are transformed. Thus, no MI_Tw (waste
waste is generated from housing-transformations after management strategy)
2070. In the best-case waste management scenario, all
building elements designed for adaptability are reused,
while in the worst-case scenario, only 50% are reused
and the remainder are landfilled
Design for disassembly DfD Before 2070, only buildings not designed for disassembly MI_Tw (waste Apartment High-rise
are demolished, while after 2070, only buildings designed management strategy)
for disassembly are demolished. After 2070, the amount
of generated waste from housing-demolitions decreases.
In the best-case waste management scenario, all building
elements designed for disassembly are reused, whereas
in the worst-case scenario, only 50% are reused and the
remainder are landfilled.
a
The insulation is wood wool; all wall claddings except for exterior claddings are made from wooden boards such as plywood, and the studs in the walls are made from small-dimension lumber.
IPSEN ET AL .

15309290, 2024, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13465 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 15309290, 2024, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13465 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
IPSEN ET AL . 563

Material selection/substitution focuses on substituting traditionally used materials with less impactful alternatives, such as natural materials
(Cabeza et al., 2014; Orsini & Marrone, 2019; Pomponi & Moncaster, 2016). We decided to focus on the use of wood and hempcrete (a mix of
cement, water, and straw (Arrigoni et al., 2017; Heidari et al., 2019) to represent this eco-design strategy. Hempcrete incorporates a high ratio
of biomaterials and has good thermal performance (Arrigoni et al., 2017), making it relevant as a replacement for traditionally used mineral wool
insulation and, by extension, relevant in northern climates such as that of Montreal.
Design for manufacturing and assembly focuses on minimizing waste from the construction of buildings by increasing the ease of construction. The
most frequently mentioned method for ease of construction is the increased use of prefabrication (Gao et al., 2020, 2018; Gerth et al., 2013; Llatas
& Osmani, 2016; Lu et al., 2020), which was implemented as a strategy.
DfA focuses on prolonging the life of buildings through design solutions, making it more desirable to update the building rather than demolish
it when it becomes obsolete (Estaji, 2017; Gosling et al., 2013; Heidrich et al., 2017; Manewa et al., 2016; Rockow et al., 2019). In this study, the
focus was on making buildings convertible, that is, capable of altering space use according to potential future needs, using interchangeable system
components, which, in this study, was represented by moveable interior walls that can be reused repeatedly (Buyle et al., 2019; Conejos et al., 2013;
Gosling et al., 2013; Rasmussen et al., 2020). It was assumed that a disruptive change from conducting housing transformations in buildings not
designed for adaptability (the BAU scenario) to only transforming buildings designed for adaptability would occur by 2070. This is highly unlikely
to occur in reality; however, it was still incorporated into the model because it was considered the second-best option after the more realistic but
harder-to-model approach of describing the potential gradual change that could happen in real life, and thus constituted a manageable way to
identify the influence of the strategy. It is assumed that the construction of buildings designed for adaptability will generate more awareness with
respect to prolonging the life of existing buildings. Consequently, the demand for Housing-demolitions will decrease, as will the associated demand
for Newly-constructed-housing, whereas the demand for Housing-transformations will increase (Askar et al., 2021; Ness & Xing, 2017). These effects,
the disruptive change, and the decrease/increase in demand for applying DfA are all assumptions made to mimic the real-life desired effects on an
urban scale when applying this strategy.
DfD aims to make it possible to disassemble the building at the end of its life and thereby reuse the building components, which is frequently
achieved by disassembling the structure of the building (Aye et al., 2012; Eberhardt et al., 2018; Eckelman et al., 2018; Minunno et al., 2020). There-
fore, this strategy is modeled by introducing a building structure (i.e., floors, wall beams, columns, and roofs) that can be disassembled after the
end-of-life and then reused. It was assumed that a disruptive change from demolishing buildings not designed for disassembly (aka the BAU sce-
nario) to demolishing buildings designed for disassembly would only occur by 2070. This approach was selected for the same reasons as those
noted above in the case of DfA.
The eco-design scenarios were applied to apartment and high-rise building archetypes because of the past and current tendency to build fewer
detached buildings (Appendix SI-7 of Supporting Information S1). Because the structure of the apartment building archetype is made from wood,
whereas that of high-rise buildings is made from concrete, the three scenarios for the material selection/substitution eco-design strategy differed
between the two building archetypes (Table 2).
The eco-design scenarios affected different model variables (Table 2); therefore, it was possible to apply more than one eco-design scenario
simultaneously. The DfA and DfD scenarios could only be combined with the Prefab scenario (Table 2) owing to the plug-and-play systems for the
walls and structures. Furthermore, the Wood_structure and Wood_walls scenario assumed the use of prefabrication because of their increased use in
the construction industry (Wang & Sinha, 2021). The assessed combinations of the eco-design strategies were divided into five groups (Appendix
SI-10 of Supporting Information S1). Group #1 was the BAU scenario. In #2, the Prefab scenario was applied as a construction method, whereas the
material composition of Newly-constructed-housing remains as BAU. In #3, the prefab scenario was applied, whereas the material composition of the
Newly-constructed-housing was changed to Wood_structure, Wood_walls, and Hempcrete_walls (Table 2). In #4 and #5, DfA and DfD were applied to all
combinations of groups #2 and #3, respectively.

2.1.3 Sensitivity analysis of the social parameters

Sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the influence of changing the values of population-share, lifestyle-factor, and population-projection
(Table 3). For the population-projection, data from the four other SSP scenarios were used (Riahi et al., 2017). In scenario group #1, the share of
detached houses was always 0% because of the current tendency to build fewer but larger buildings containing multiple dwellings (Appendix SI-7
of Supporting Information S1). The remaining parameters of the building stock model were kept as in the BAU scenario; that is, the demand for
Newly-constructed-housing changed, but the way the demand was fulfilled, represented by the material intensities, did not change.

2.2 Impact assessment method

Given the macro scale and time dependency of this study, a consequential LCA was chosen, as this type of LCA seeks to capture the changes in
environmental impacts as a consequence of the induced changes to the assessed system (Consequential-LCA, 2021). The goal was to assess the
environmental consequences of changing the way the future demand for housing is met in Montreal. Therefore, the functional unit had to fulfill
 15309290, 2024, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13465 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
564 IPSEN ET AL .

TA B L E 3 Overview of the sensitivity scenarios for the social parameters used to determine the demand for Newly-constructed-housing.

Scenarios (#1,2,3 and A,B,C,D) Model parameters Detached houses Apartment buildings High-rise buildings
Reference values Population-share 33.3% 33.3% 33.3%
Lifestyle-factor 40 m2 40 m2 40 m2
Population-projection SSP2
#1 A Population-share 0% 50% 50%
B Population-share 0% 25% 75%
C Population-share 0% 75% 25%
Lifestyle-factor Reference values
Population-projection
#2 Population-share Reference values
2
A Lifestyle-factor 30 m 30 m2 30 m2
B Lifestyle-factor 50 m2 50 m2 50 m2
2 2
C Lifestyle-factor 60 m 60 m 60 m2
Population-projection Reference values
#3 Population-share Reference values
Lifestyle-factor
A Population-projection SSP1
B Population-projection SSP3
C Population-projection SSP4
D Population-projection SSP5

Note: The population-share of detached houses is 0% in all scenarios within scenario group #1 because of current trends in Montreal to build apartment and
high-rise buildings, instead of detached houses.

Montreal’s annual demand for new housing construction, housing transformations, and housing demolitions. Given the application of consequential
system boundaries, system expansion (substitution method) was used to solve the multifunctionality problem. The assessment was conducted using
the open-source software Brightway2 (Mutel, 2017) and the background system database Ecoinvent 3.6-consequential (Ecoinvent, n.d.a, n.d.b)
(Appendix SI-15 of Supporting Information S2). The IMPACT World + impact assessment method was used, in which 16 of 18 midpoint impact
categories were assessed (Bulle et al., 2019). The impact category GWP500, where the global warming potential is estimated at over 500 years, was
left out of the study because the impacts on climate change were represented using GWP100, where the global warming potential is estimated at
over 100 years. The impact category of water scarcity was also left out of the study because the impacts on water were covered by the four impact
categories: marine eutrophication, freshwater eutrophication, freshwater acidification, and freshwater ecotoxicity.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

All figures in this section show the average results (Table 1, VIII) for the impact category of climate change (GWP100); for the results of the other
assessed impact categories, see Appendix SI-13 of Supporting Information S1. As this is a consequential assessment, negative results do not indicate
that emissions are removed but that there is an avoidance of potential impacts.

3.1 Performance of the eco-design strategies

3.1.1 Using prefabrication during construction

Using prefabrication without changing the material composition reduces the impact by less than 1% across all impact categories except for ionizing
radiation, where the impact increases by less than 1% (Figure 2, BAU_Prefab; Appendix SI-13 of Supporting Information S1). This is because the
use of prefabrication as a construction method only influences the generation of waste from Newly-constructed-housing, which contributes only
slightly to the total impact (Appendix SI-12). Furthermore, the generated waste contributes negatively to the total impact. However, this negative
contribution was averaged between the best- and worst-case scenarios. If, for instance, the BAU scenario had been the only worst-case scenario, the
 15309290, 2024, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13465 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
IPSEN ET AL . 565

!" !# !$

 

_ 

 ___


 __ _


 __ _

 _ _ _

 _ _ _


F I G U R E 2 Relative change in global warming potential when changing the construction method (main scenario group #2) and changing the
material composition as well as construction method (main scenario group #3) of Newly-constructed-housing relative to the business-as-usual
scenario. For further explanation of the scenarios illustrated here, see Section 2.1.2. The underlying data can be found in Supporting Information
S2, Appendix SI-19. BAU, business-as-usual.

impact reductions from using prefabrication would have been more pronounced. Thus, the benefits of using prefabrication depend on the situation
in which it is compared, and assessing only one possible BAU limits this comparison. However, assessing the use of prefabrication on an urban scale
reveals that environmental reductions from this strategy can never yield substantial impact savings.
The magnitude of the relative changes decreases with time for all scenarios (Figure 2) because the contribution of generated waste and mate-
rial input from Newly-constructed-housing decreased with time following the decreasing population growth rate (Appendix SI-12 of Supporting
Information S1). Thus, the influence of the strategies affecting Newly-constructed-housing will also decrease with time.

3.1.2 Using wood and wooden products

The increased use of wood for both structures and walls in high-rise buildings can reduce the impacts (Figure 2; Appendix SI-13 of Supporting
Information S1). However, the use of wood or wooden products in the walls of high-rise buildings is the most consistent approach for reducing
impacts across impact categories. When increasing the use of wood in the walls of apartment buildings, the results are inconclusive, yielding an
unclear set of results ranging from slight reductions to slight increases across the covered impact categories. The observed impact changes are
more significant for high-rise buildings than for apartment buildings because the composition of the walls and structure differs between the two
building archetypes. The BAU for high-rise buildings entails a high concrete content for the structure and steel/gypsum for the walls, whereas that
for apartment buildings involves a high wood content in the structure and both steel/gypsum and wood/wooden products for the walls (Appendix
SI-14 of Supporting Information S2). Malmqvist et al. (2018) studied the results of seven case studies (three in the United Kingdom and four in
Sweden), where existing structures were replaced with wood. In five of these studies, wood replaced concrete; in one, wood replaced masonry;
and in the last one, wood replaced steel. Regardless of the type of structure that was replaced, there was a reduction in GHG emissions, which is
consistent with the findings of the present study. However, the results of our assessment add to the perspective that using wood for the structure
does not necessarily reduce the impact in all impact categories. Furthermore, replacing all walls with wood and wooden products is more consistent
in terms of reducing the impact across the covered impact categories for high-rise archetypes.

3.1.3 Using hempcrete walls

Using hempcrete for walls increases the impact in most impact categories for both high-rise and apartment buildings (Figure 2; Appendix SI-13 of
Supporting Information S1). In high-rise buildings, reductions occur in the impact categories of climate change, fossil and nuclear energy use, mineral
resource use, freshwater ecotoxicity, human toxicity, cancer, and non-cancer human toxicity, whereas increases occur in the remaining 10 impact
categories. In the BAU scenario, the walls for both building archetypes are light walls (steel or wood studs cladded with gypsum or wood boards),
whereas the hempcrete walls are heavier and use more material; this explains the increase in impacts for most of the impact categories. Heidari
et al. (2019) compared the environmental impacts of two different versions of a hempcrete wall to a brick/concrete block cavity wall and found a
lower impact for the majority of the assessed impact categories in the case of hempcrete walls. These results indicate that hempcrete may not be a
good alternative for lighter types of walls but may present a suitable choice when used to replace heavier wall types such as concrete or brick.
 15309290, 2024, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13465 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
566 IPSEN ET AL .

 _

!" !' ! !# !% !& !$

(      )

(      ) 

*   +     

     
,-.   !
+     
     ___  ___
      ) !% !& !$ !% !& !$
     !
   )  + 
   


!


" !

 __  _  ___  ___

!% !& !$ !% !& !$ !% !& !$
  

  

! ! !

" " "

F I G U R E 3 Relative change in global warming potential when applying design for adaptability or design for disassembly for each of the
assessed material compositions of Newly-constructed-housing relative to the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario. The material compositions are: (a)
the BAU scenario, (b) the use of hempcrete walls for high-rise buildings, (c) the use of hempcrete walls for apartment buildings, (d) using wood for
the structure of high-rise buildings, (e) using wood and wooden products in the walls of high-rise buildings, and (f) using wood and wooden
products in the walls of apartment buildings. For further explanation of the scenarios illustrated here, see Section 2.1.2. The underlying data can be
found in Supporting Information S2, Appendix SI-19. BAU, business-as-usual; GWP, global warming potential.

3.1.4 Applying design for adaptability

When applying DfA without changing the material composition of Newly-constructed-housing, impacts are reduced slightly before 2070 and more
substantially in 2080 and 2090 (by approximately 8% and 17%, respectively; Figure 3 a; Appendix SI-13 of Supporting Information S1). These ten-
dencies apply to all assessed impact categories. The more noticeable reductions in impacts observed after 2070 are due to the assumption of a
disruptive change at that point that causes a switch from only transforming non-DfA buildings to only transforming DfA buildings. The slight impact
reductions seen before 2070 are caused by the assumption that the construction of DfA buildings generates more awareness for prolonging the life
of existing buildings. Consequently, the demand for Housing-demolitions will decrease as will the associated demand for Newly-constructed-housing,
but the demand for Housing-transformations will increase. The effects of applying DfA, the disruptive change, and the decrease/increase in demand
are all assumptions made to mimic the desired real-life urban-scale effects of applying this strategy. It is evident that the reduction in the identified
impacts is dependent on the actualization of the described effects; this study is therefore limited by assessing only one scenario for the assumed
future effects of applying DfA. A previous study has provided limited findings, concluding that using moveable wall systems in a building renders the
adaptation of the building layout burden-free; however, as this stage only accounts for 2% of the total impact of the building, the overall reduction
in impact is very small (Rasmussen et al., 2020). By assessing DfA on an urban level and in a time-dependent manner, the present study provides
further insights into the potential of this strategy to reduce impacts. We conclude that DfA is a long-term strategy that requires many years to take
effect, and savings are only obtained if the assumed effects occur.
Regardless of the material composition of Newly-constructed-housing, applying DfA reduces the impact more strongly than merely changing the
material composition (Figure 3b–f). In the case of increased impact from changing the material composition (Figure 3c), applying the strategy can
reduce the impact increase or even directly decrease the impact over time. These tendencies are seen across impact categories but vary in magni-
tude. The simultaneous application of a DfA strategy while changing the material composition is the most effective approach for reducing impacts
 15309290, 2024, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13465 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
IPSEN ET AL . 567

    !

 !" !# !$   !" !# !$

/ /! '
/  /! "
/0 /!0 !
! 

" 
!
' "

F I G U R E 4 Relative change in global warming potential when assuming a different future: (a) population-share and (b) lifestyle-factor, as
described in Section 2.1.3, compared to the business-as-usual scenario. The underlying data can be found in Supporting Information S2, Appendix
SI-19.

because it simultaneously affects multiple aspects of the model. Thus, the results suggest that a combination of multiple eco-design strategies may
be preferable to applying a single strategy to reduce adverse environmental impacts.
The reduction in impact across all categories from applying DfA increases with time; for example, the reduction is approximately 12% in 2070
and 23% in 2090 (Figure 3d). This is because the contribution of Housing-demolitions and Housing-transformations to the total impact increases over
time (Appendix SI-12 of Supporting Information S1), and DfA reduces impacts from these. The results therefore indicate that DfA is well suited for
reducing impacts in future scenarios where the population, and thus the demand for housing, is not increasing.

3.1.5 Applying design for disassembly

The observations made for DfA (Section 3.1.4) also apply to DfD; applying this strategy reduces the impact regardless of the material composition,
and these reductions increase over time. However, the magnitude of impact reductions when applying DfD is smaller than that when applying DfA.
For example, impacts are reduced by less than 5% in 2090 for the DfD scenario, compared to 18% in 2090 for DfA, when not changing the mate-
rial composition (Figure 3a). Furthermore, the application of DfD has no effect until after the disruptive change in 2070. The smaller magnitude of
savings is caused by DfD only affecting the waste generated from Housing-demolitions, whereas DfA affects multiple aspects of the model simulta-
neously. Therefore, our results show that applying DfD alone can reduce adverse environmental impacts; however, outcomes may be improved by
combining it with other eco-design strategies. Like DfA, DfD is a long-term strategy and may be better suited for a future in which the population is
decreasing.
Studies have also assessed the potential environmental reductions when applying the concept of DfD. The authors have observed reductions in
GHG emissions of more than 60% (Eckelman et al., 2018; Minunno et al., 2020) and concluded that the potential environmental savings are depen-
dent on the material composition of the building (Eberhardt et al., 2018). The impact reductions obtained by applying DfD in our study are small,
compared with the findings of other researchers because DfD affects only the waste generated from Housing-demolitions in our model. Because the
influence of Housing-demolitions on most impact categories is small and already contributes negatively to the total impact (Appendix SI-12 of Sup-
porting Information S1), the overall influence of DfD decreases. Our results confirm that the magnitude of the reduction in impact depends on the
material composition; however, some reduction is always observed if the assumed effects occur, regardless of the material composition.

3.2 Sensitivity analysis of social parameters

3.2.1 Population share

The model is sensitive to changes in population-share (Figure 4a), especially to increasing the share of the apartment building archetype. Increasing
the amount from 33.3% (reference scenario) to 75% in scenario #1-C reduces the impact by more than 30%. This can be explained by examining
the material intensities of the three building archetypes (Appendix SI-14 of Supporting Information S2). The apartment building archetype had the
smallest amount of material per m2 , whereas the detached house archetype had the highest. Building more apartment buildings would therefore
entail the use of less material per m2 of housing space. These findings indicate that reductions in environmental impacts can be achieved by changing
the type of building constructed to meet housing demands.
 15309290, 2024, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13465 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
568 IPSEN ET AL .

 #" 

!" !# !$
'
/"2 11  11 

/"2 11 " 11 ! "

/"02 11 ' 11 " !

/"(2 11  11 '

11 




   " 
$ 3    04!56

&

'

"


!! !" !" !' !' ! ! !# !# !% !% !& !& !$ !$ !

F I G U R E 5 Global warming potential (GWP) obtained using different scenarios for the population projection. (a) Relative change in GWP when
changing the population projection from shared socioeconomic pathway (SSP) 2. (b) Total impact when using the five different SSP scenarios. Lines
in (b) indicate the average impact for each scenario, whereas the shaded areas denote the range of the impact created by applying the worst- and
best-case scenarios. The underlying data can be found in Supporting Information S2, Appendix SI-19.

3.2.2 Lifestyle factor

The model is highly sensitive to changes in lifestyle-factor (Figure 4b). This sensitivity decreases with time because lifestyle-factor directly determines
the demand for Newly-constructed-housing, the contribution of which to the total impact lessens over time (Appendix SI-12 of Supporting Infor-
mation S1). This indicates that increasing the available living space per person might counteract the potential savings from applying the assessed
eco-design strategies.

3.2.3 Population projection

Changing the scenario for projections of future population changes the temporal distribution pattern of future impact potentials as well as
their magnitude (Figure 5 b). This is because population-projection is the main determining parameter for future housing demand, and the
increase/decrease projected by the SSPs varies greatly from one scenario to another (Appendix SI-8 of Supporting Information S1). This highlights
the fact that population-projection is the principal driver of the potential environmental impacts induced by the provision of future housing. It can
further be observed that a greater magnitude of the potential future impact results in a greater range of results. For example, for the scenario with
the highest impact (SSP5), the aggregated results have a range of approximately 4−7 million tonne CO2 -eq in 2025. For the scenario with the small-
est impact (SSP3), this range is 1.2−2.3 million tonne CO2 -eq at the same time point. This width in the range is caused by the introduction of worst-
and best-case scenarios into the model. Overall, it can be concluded that it is important to relate the effects of DfA and DfD to several BAU scenarios
to fully validate their impact-reduction potential.
As expected and in line with existing UN analyses (Wilmoth et al., 2022), the model is highly sensitive to changes in population projections
(Figure 5a), since this parameter is the main driver of the impact induced by providing housing. Therefore, it is evident that while technical solutions,
 15309290, 2024, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13465 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
IPSEN ET AL . 569

such as eco-design strategies and adjusting the type of buildings built to meet the demand for housing, can play a part in reducing the environmental
impacts of providing housing, the greatest reduction potential lies in finding ways to lower the demand for new housing, for example, by living in
smaller spaces (Section 3.2.2).

3.3 Limitations and application

Throughout this study, the demand for housing transformations and demolitions, lifestyle factors, and population share were kept constant. In real
life, these parameters fluctuate for various underlying reasons, and using constants instead in modeling introduces a level of inaccuracy in pre-
dictions of future building stock dynamics. Another source of inaccuracy is the model’s long timeframe, which was selected to obtain a realistic
duration when introducing DfA and DfD and because of the long and varied lifespan of buildings, which ranges from 20 to 300 years (most com-
monly between 50 and 150 years) (Andersen & Negendahl, 2023; Ianchenko et al., 2020; O’Connor, 2004). Although the prediction of building
stock dynamics lacks accuracy, the model still offers the possibility of identifying the environmental impacts of applying eco-design strategies from
a dynamic and macroscale perspective and across multiple building types and environmental impact categories. Beyond this, environmental impacts
are identified in relation to different scenarios for the prior mentioned model parameters, and thereby, to potential developments in the building
stock. Therefore, the study’s objective has been achieved and there is no need to add further complexity to the model.
The material intensities were based on a limited number of case studies and were slightly temporally displaced because of the timing of the input
data. Furthermore, no future technological development of background processes or potential future development of the supply of material input
was accounted for. All these factors contribute to the uncertainty of the generated LCIs. However, as uncertainty was approximately the same across
all assessed scenarios, this did not affect inter-scenario comparisons. The same is true for the uncertainties embedded in the impact assessment.
Using an approach similar to the one adopted here, a report from the International Resource Panel (IRP) addressed multiple building archetypes
and strategies for lowering the impact of residential buildings; however, that study focused on GHG emissions only (Hertwich et al., 2020). Similar
to our findings, the IRP report concludes that reducing the demand for living space can play a remarkable role in reducing emissions. The IRP report
uses a model based on material flow analysis to estimate the building stock (Pauliuk & Heeren, 2020). This method is used to estimate the GHG
emissions for the entire building stock but does not provide the same resolution as our assessment in terms of how different building archetypes
and building stock dynamics (e.g., the transformation of buildings) affect the results. This approach could be a valid alternative for specific purposes
such as those in the present study. However, while the IRP approach can provide information on the environmental effects of applying eco-design
strategies, it cannot provide insights into the underlying causes of these effects. The approach adopted in our study might lack accuracy in its pre-
diction of the future dynamics of the building stock; however, its transparency and simplicity enable it to provide insights that go beyond merely
estimating a strategy’s mitigation potential.

4 CONCLUSIONS

The building sector consumes vast amounts of virgin materials and resources, resulting in massive emissions into the ecosphere. The potential mit-
igation capacity of eco-design strategies concerning these impacts has to date not been well researched. Therefore, the present study attempted
to quantify the environmental performance of the four main eco-design strategies. A time-dependent urban-scale system model was developed to
overcome the limitations of previous approaches described in the literature. The model is based on an existing building stock model by Marinova
et al. (2020) and was customized to account for further building stock dynamics in addition to new constructions. The output of the model was then
used as the input for a consequential LCA. The conclusions drawn from this study are fourfold and relevant beyond the case study site of Montreal.
First, increasing the use of wood and wooden products in high-rise buildings can reduce environmental impacts, especially when the focus is put
not on replacing the building structure but rather on the partition walls and interior parts of the façade. The use of wood reduces impacts from
the construction of new buildings and is therefore a strategy that can reduce impacts on a short-term basis. Second, using hempcrete walls as an
alternative to light partition walls (wood/steel studs and gypsum boards) increases rather than decreases environmental impacts. Third, introducing
designs for adaptability using plug-and-play wall systems, or designs for disassembly using a structure that can be disassembled and then reused, can
reduce impacts; however, these approaches are long-term investments and only yield benefits long after the strategies are implemented. Moreover,
obtaining these impact reductions is dependent on specific circumstances and on the design solutions being implemented as intended; for example,
in designing for disassembly, the respective structures must indeed be disassembled and reused rather than demolished and sent to landfill. There-
fore, it is recommended that architects and urban planners consider these eco-design strategies as best suited to projects where it is possible to
anticipate the changes and events occurring throughout a building’s lifecycle with reasonable confidence.
Reductions in environmental impacts from the increased use of prefabrication were small but consistent across the assessed impact categories.
Prefabrication is essential for the implementation of DfA and DfD and can thereby play an indirect role in impact minimization. Sensitivity anal-
ysis suggests that the greatest reductions in environmental impact could be gained by constructing more apartment buildings, as opposed to
 15309290, 2024, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13465 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
570 IPSEN ET AL .

detached houses or high-rise buildings, and especially by lowering overall demand for housing, such as by reducing individual available living space.
Furthermore, if significant reductions in impacts are to be obtained while potential future demand for housing is still being met, the application of a
single strategy at a time will not be sufficient to obtain substantial impact reductions. Future research should focus on determining combinations of
eco-design strategies and other related parameters that have the greatest ability to reduce impacts and how the benefits of these potential reduc-
tions can be obtained. Our study demonstrates that overly simplified assessments of building eco-design strategies, for example, not accounting for
time-dependencies or multiple impact categories, are not sufficiently informative for decision support, as the modeling choices taken in this assess-
ment affect the results in such a way that they frequently differ from previous findings already presented in the scientific literature. Therefore, it is
recommended that researchers and professionals conduct LCAs to adjust their approaches, to account for the temporal dependency of eco-design
strategies.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the supporting information of this article.

ORCID
Kikki Lambrecht Ipsen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3416-421X
Massimo Pizzol https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7462-2668

REFERENCES
Aksözen, M., Hassler, U., & Kohler, N. (2017). Reconstitution of the dynamics of an urban building stock. Building Research & Information, 45(3), 239–258.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2016.1152040
Andersen, C. E., Kanafani, K., Zimmermann, R. K., Rasmussen, F. N., & Birgisdóttir, H. (2020). Comparison of GHG emissions from circular and conventional
building component. Buildings and Cities, 1(1), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.55
Andersen, R., & Negendahl, K. (2023). Lifespan prediction of existing building typologies. Journal of Building Engineering, 65, 105696. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jobe.2022.105696
Arrigoni, A., Pelosato, R., Melià, P., Ruggieri, G., Sabbadini, S., & Dotelli, G. (2017). Life cycle assessment of natural building materials: The role of carbonation,
mixture components and transport in the environmental impacts of hempcrete blocks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 1051–1061. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.161
Askar, R., Bragança, L., & Gervásio, H. (2021). Adaptability of buildings: A critical review on the concept evolution. Applied Science, 11, 4483. https://doi.org/
10.3390/app11104483
Aye, L., Ngo, T., Crawford, R. H., Gammampila, R., & Mendis, P. (2012). Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable
building modules. Energy and Buildings, 47, 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.11.049
Bossink, B. A. G., & Brouwers, H. J. H. (1996). Construction waste: Quantification and source evaluation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
122(1), 55–60.
Bulle, C., Margni, M., Patouillard, L., Boulay, A.-M., Bourgault, G., De Bruille, V., Cao, V., Hauschild, M., Henderson, A., Humbert, S., Kashef-Haghighi, S., Kounina,
A., Laurent, A., Levasseur, A., Liard, G., Rosenbaum, R. K., Roy, P.-O., Shaked, S., Fantke, P., & Jolliet, O. (2019). IMPACT World+: A globally regionalized life
cycle impact assessment method. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(9), 1653–1674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01583-0
Buyle, M., Galle, W., Debacker, W., & Audenaert, A. (2019). Sustainability assessment of circular building alternatives: Consequential LCA and LCC for internal
wall assemblies as a case study in a Belgian context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 218, 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.306
Cabeza, L. F., Rincón, L., Vilariño, V., Pérez, G., & Castell, A. (2014). Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the
building sector : A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 394–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.037
Conejos, S., Langston, C., & Smith, J. (2013). AdaptSTAR model: A climate-friendly strategy to promote built environment sustainability. Habitat International,
37, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.12.003
Consequential-LCA. (2021). Why and when? Last updated:2021–08–20. www.consequential-lca.org
de Wit, M., Hoogzaad, J., Ramkumar, S., Friedl, H., & Douma, A. (2018). The circularity gap report. An analysis of the circular state of the global economy. Circle
Economy. https://www.legacy.circularity-gap.world/2018
Eberhardt, L. C. M., Birgisdóttir, H., & Birkved, M. (2018). Life cycle assessment of a Danish office building designed for disassembly. Building Research and
Information, 47(6), 666–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2018.1517458
Eckelman, M. J., Brown, C., Troup, L. N., Wang, L., Webster, M. D., & Hajjar, J. F. (2018). Life cycle energy and environmental benefits of novel design-for-
deconstruction structural systems in steel buildings. Building and Environment, 143, 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.07.017
Ecoinvent. (n.d.b) System Models—Substitution, consequential, long-term. https://ecoinvent.org/the-ecoinvent-database/system-models/#!/substitution
Ecoinvent. (n.d.a) ecoinvent v3.6. https://ecoinvent.org/the-ecoinvent-database/data-releases/ecoinvent-3-6/
Estaji, H. (2017). A review of flexibility and adaptability in housing design. International Journal of Contemporary Architecture, 4(2), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.
14621/tna.20170204
Gao, S., Jin, R., & Lu, W. (2020). Design for manufacture and assembly in construction: A review. Building Research and Information, 48(5), 538–550. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09613218.2019.1660608
Gao, S., Low, S. P., & Nair, K. (2018). Design for manufacturing and assembly (DfMA): A preliminary study of factors influencing its adoption in Singapore.
Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 14(6), 440–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2018.1502653
 15309290, 2024, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13465 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
IPSEN ET AL . 571

Gerth, R., Boqvist, A., Bjelkemyr, M., & Lindberg, B. (2013). Design for construction: Utilizing production experiences in development. Construction Management
and Economics, 31(2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2012.756142
Gosling, J., Sassi, P., Naim, M., & Lark, R. (2013). Adaptable buildings: A systems approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 7, 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scs.2012.11.002
Heeren, N., & Hellweg, S. (2018). Tracking construction material over space and time. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jiec13465.12739
Heidari, M. D., Lawrence, M., Blanchet, P., & Amor, B. (2019). Regionalised life cycle assessment of bio-based materials in construction; the case of Hemp Shiv
treated with sol-gel coating. Materials, 12, 2987. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12182987
Heidrich, O., Kamara, J., Maltese, S., Re Cecconi, F., & Dejaco, M. C. (2017). A critical review of the developments in building adaptability. International Journal
of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 35(4), 284–303. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-03-2017-0018
Hertwich, E., Lifset, R., Pauliuk, S., & Heeren, N. (2020). Resource efficiency and climate change: Material efficiency strategies for a low-carbon future. International
Resource Panel, United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/resource-efficiency-and-climate-change-material-
efficiency-strategies-low-carbon
Ianchenko, A., Simonen, K., & Barnes, C. (2020). Residential building lifespan and community turnover. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 26, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000401
IIASA. (2018). SSP Public Database—Version 2.0—Basic elements. International Institute for Applied System Analysis. https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/SspDb
Ipsen, K. L., Pizzol, M., Birkved, M., & Amor, B. (2021). How lack of knowledge and tools hinders the eco-design of buildings—A systematic review. Urban
Science, 5(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci5010020
ISO. (2020). ISO 14006: 2020 (en) Environmental management systems—Guidelines for incorporating ecodesign. ISO.
Kleemann, F., Lederer, J., Rechberger, H., & Fellner, J. (2016). GIS-based analysis of Vienna’s material stock in buildings. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(2),
368–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec13465.12446
Krausmann, F., Lauk, C., Haas, W., & Wiedenhofer, D. (2018). From resource extraction to outflows of wastes and emissions: The socioeconomic metabolism
of the global economy, 1900–2015. Global Environmental Change, 52, 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.07.003
Kumar, V., Hewage, K., & Sadiq, R. (2015). Life Cycle assessment of residential buildings: A case study in Canada. International Journal of Energy and
Environmental Engineering, 9(8), 1009–1017.
Lausselet, C., Rokseth, L. S., Lien, S. K., Bergsdal, H., Tønnesen, J., Brattebø, H., & Sandberg, N. H. (2022). Geo-referenced building stock analysis as a basis for
local-level energy and climate mitigation strategies. Energy and Buildings, 276, 112504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112504
Lausselet, C., Urrego, J. P. F., Resch, E., & Brattebø, H. (2020). Temporal analysis of the material flows and embodied greenhouse gas emissions of a
neighborhood building stock. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 25, 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec13465.13049
Lefebvre, K. (2004). Caractérisation structurale et évaluation de la vulnérabilité sismique des bâtiments historiques en maçonnerie du Vieux-Montreal [Master’s thesis,
École de Technologie Supérieure—Univesité du Québec].
Lessard, Y., Anand, C., Blanchet, P., Frenette, C., & Amor, B. (2018). LEED v4: Where are we now? Critical assessment through the LCA of an office building
using a low impact energy consumption mix. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 22(5), 1105–1116. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec13465.12647
Llatas, C., & Osmani, M. (2016). Development and validation of a building design waste reduction model. Waste Management, 56, 318–336. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.wasman.2016.05.026
Lu, W., Lee, W. M. W., Xue, F., & Xu, J. (2021). Revisiting the effects of prefabrication on construction waste minimization: A quantitative study using bigger
data. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 170, 105579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105579
Lu, W., Tan, T., Xu, J., Wang, J., Chen, K. e., Gao, S., & Xue, F. (2020). Design for manufacture and assembly (DfMA) in construction: The old and the new.
Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 17, 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2020.1768505
Malmqvist, T., Nehasilova, M., Moncaster, A., Birgisdottir, H., Nygaard Rasmussen, F., Houlihan Wiberg, A., & Potting, J. (2018). Design and construction
strategies for reducing embodied impacts from buildings—Case study analysis. Energy and Buildings, 166, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.
01.033
Manewa, A., Siriwardena, M., Ross, A., & Madanayake, U. (2016). Adaptable buildings for sustainable built environment. Built Environment Project and Asset
Management, 6(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-10-2014-0053
Marinova, S., Deetman, S., Van Der Voet, E., & Daioglou, V. (2020). Global construction materials database and stock analysis of residential buildings between
1970–2050. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247, 119146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119146
Minunno, R., O’grady, T., Morrison, G. M., & Gruner, R. L. (2020). Exploring environmental benefits of reuse and recycle practices: A circular economy case
study of a modular building. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 160, 104855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104855
Mosteiro-Romero, M., Krogmann, U., Wallbaum, H., Ostermeyer, Y., Senick, J. S., & Andrews, C. J. (2014). Relative importance of electricity sources and con-
struction practices in residential buildings : A Swiss-US comparison of energy related life-cycle impacts. Energy & Buildings, 68, 620–631. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.09.046
Mutel, C. (2017). Brightway: An open source framework for Life Cycle Assessment. The journal of Open Source Software, 2(12), 236. https://doi.org/10.21105/
joss.00236
Ness, D. A., & Xing, K. e. (2017). Toward a resource-efficient built environment a literature review and conceptual model. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3),
572–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec13465.12586
O’Connor, J. (2004). Survey on actual service life for North American buildings [Conference presentation]. Woodframe Housing Durability and Disaster Issues
Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Olaya, Y., Vásquez, F., & Müller, D. B. (2017). Dwelling stock dynamics for addressing housing deficit. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 123, 187–199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.028
Orsini, F., & Marrone, P. (2019). Approaches for a low-carbon production of building materials: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241, 118380. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118380
Pauliuk, S., & Heeren, N. (2020). ODYM—An open software framework for studying dynamic material systems: Principles, implementation, and data
structures. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 24, 446–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec13465.12952
Pomponi, F., & Moncaster, A. (2016). Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the built environment—What does the evidence say? Journal of
Environmental Management, 181, 687–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.036
 15309290, 2024, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13465 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [09/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
572 IPSEN ET AL .

Rasmussen, F. N., Birkved, M., & Birgisdóttir, H. (2020). Low-carbon design strategies for new residential buildings–lessons from architectural practice.
Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 16(5), 374–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2020.1747385
Reyna, J. L., & Chester, M. V. (2014). The growth of urban building stock unintended lock-in and embedded environmental effects. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
19(4), 524–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec13465.12211
Reza, B., Sadiq, R., & Hewage, K. (2014). Emergy-based life cycle assessment (Em-LCA) of multi-unit and single-family residential buildings in Canada.
International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 3, 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2014.09.001
Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., O’Neill, B. C., Fujimori, S., Bauer, N., Calvin, K., Dellink, R., Fircko, O., Lutz, W., Popp, A., Cuaresma, J. C.,
KC, S., Leimbach, M., Jiang, L., Kram, T., Rao, S., Emmerling, J., . . . Tavoni, M. (2017). The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and
greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Global Environmental Change, 42, 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009
Rockow, Z. R., Ross, B., & Black, A. K. (2019). Review of methods for evaluating adaptability of buildings. International Journal of Building Pathology and
Adaptation, 37(3), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-01-2018-0013
Sandberg, N. H., Næss, J. S., Brattebø, H., Andresen, I., & Gustavsen, A. (2021). Large potentials for energy saving and greenhouse gas emission reductions
from large-scale deployment of zero emission building technologies in a national building stock. Energy Policy, 152, 112114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2020.112114
Sandberg, N. H., Sartori, I., Heidrich, O., Dawson, R., Dascalaki, E., Dimitriou, S., Vimmr, T., Filippidou, F., Stegnar, G., Zavrl, M. S., & Brattebø, H. (2016). Dynamic
building stock modelling: Application to 11 European countries to support the energy efficiency and retrofit ambitions of the EU. Energy and Buildings, 132,
26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.05.100
Sandberg, N. H., Sartori, I., Vestrum, M. I., & Brattebø, H. (2017). Using a segmented dynamic dwelling stock model for scenarioanalysis of future energy
demand: The dwelling stock of Norway2016–2050. Energy and Buildings, 146, 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.04.016
Sinka, M., Korjakins, A., Bajare, D., Zimele, Z., & Sahmenko, G. (2018). Bio-based construction panels for low carbon development. International Scientific
Conference “Environmental and Climate Technologies”, CONECT 2018, 147, 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.063
Stephan, A., & Athanassiadis, A. (2017). Quantifying and mapping embodied environmental requirements of urban building stocks. Building and Environment,
114, 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.043
United Nations Environment Programme. (2020). 2020 Global status report for buildings and construction: Towards a zero‑emission, efficient and resilient buildings
and construction sector. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/34572
Ville de Montréal. (2021). Permis de construction, transformation et demolition. Données Québec. https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/dataset/vmtl-
permis-construction
Wang, S., & Sinha, R. (2021). Life cycle assessment of different prefabricated rates for building construction. Buildings, 552, 11, https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings11110552
Wilmoth, J., Menozzi, C., & Bassarsky, L. (2022). Why population growth matters for sustainable development. United Nations Department of Eco-
nomic and Social Affairs. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/un-desa-policy-brief-no-130-why-population-growth-matters-for-
sustainable-development/
Zhang, W., Tan, S., Lei, Y., & Wang, S. (2014). Life cycle assessment of a single-family residential building in Canada: A case study. Building Simulation, 7, 429–438.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-013-0159-y

SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.

How to cite this article: Ipsen, K. L., Pizzol, M., Birkved, M., & Amor, B. (2024). Environmental performance of eco-design strategies applied
to the building sector. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 28, 556–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13465