Life Cycle Assessment of

Buildings: A Simple Example

Published by:

The Carbon Leadership Forum

Funded by:
Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings:
A Simple Example
Version 1.0

July 9, 2018

Published by: The Carbon Leadership Forum Project Team Graphics Team
Department of Architecture Kathrina Simonen Mazohra Thami
University of Washington
Monica Huang Thipok Cholsaipant
Barbara X. Rodriguez Meghan Lewis
www.carbonleadershipforum.org Lindsay Todaro

Funded by: Project Sponsors Carbon Leadership Forum Sponsors

Diamond Sponsors Platinum Sponsors Gold Sponsors

Carbon Innovations Arup Climate Earth
Mithun Central Concrete Magnusson Klemencic Associates
StopWaste Eagle Rock Aggregates NRMCA
The Russell Family Interface Owens Corning
Foundation
Mithun Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
Skanska Thinkstep
Thornton Tomasetti Urban Fabrick
Walter P Moore

Copyright: Licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution 4.0 International License

Image on title page designed by freepik.com

Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Simple Example

Introduction
This document presents a simple example of the steps in Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings:
A Practice Guide (referred to as the Practice Guide in this document). A small gingerbread
house is used instead of a real-life building for the sake of simplicity, and also to focus
attention on the process instead of the material results. All of the numbers for this example
have no basis in reality, including the environmental impacts calculated in the later steps.

Some pages have a box (example shown at the right) that discusses the checkpoint steps
Checkpoint:
from Figure 5 of the Practice Guide.

Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Simple Example | Introduction Page 3

Step 1: Define Goal and Scope
For Step 1, the goal and scope of the assessment are presented in Table 1 and Table 2,
respectively. The parameters are organized hierarchically according to the LCA Taxonomy
in the Online Resources. In the taxonomy, some parameters do not have lower-level
categories, and are indicated here by “N/A”. Note that the taxonomy structure shown here
may not reflect the latest version of the taxonomy in the Online Resources. The details for
the gingerbread house example are indicated in red text. Some non-critical entries are left
blank in this example.

Table 1. Goal description per the LCA taxonomy.

Parameter, Parameter, Parameter, Parameter, Parameter,

Category Category Category Category Category Parameter Field
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
1. Goal and Goal Assessment Intended N/A To demonstrate the basic steps of performing an
scope goal application LCA of a building in accordance with the steps
outlined in this Practice Guide.
Background Client for N/A Building designers or others in the building industry
information on assessment who are learning how to perform an LCA for the first
assessment or intended time.
audience
Name and N/A
qualification of
assessor
Organization of N/A
assessor
Project phase N/A Final design
at time of LCA
assessment
Year of LCA N/A
assessment
Source(s) of N/A Environmental impact data for materials
environmental were fabricated for the purposes of this study.
impact data Energy impacts were estimated from www.
EnergyUseCalculator.com and US EPA eGrid data.

Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Simple Example | Step 1: Define Goal and Scope Page 4
Table 2. Scope description per the LCA taxonomy.

Parameter, Parameter, Parameter, Parameter, Category

Category Category Category Parameter, Category Level 5 Parameter Field
Level 4
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
1. Goal and Scope Functional Area characteristics Building footprint area [in2] 12.5
scope equivalent
Total gross floor area (GFA) [in2] 25
Building model Building occupancy type and Occupancy type: High hazard (Group H) per the International Building Code.
pattern of use
Building use type(s) 11-13 21 Military Facility (per OmniClass Table 11)
Daylight simulation performed No
Design life expectancy 1 year
Design number of building 0
occupants
HVAC design optimization No
performed
Natural ventilation simulation No
performed
Parking lot type and size No parking lot
Relevant technical and functional Must conform to the International Gingerbread House Building Code.
requirements
Required service life (ReqSL) [days] 30
Structural type Gingerbread
Geographic and site Climate zone 4C (per IECC)
characteristics
Landscaping description Skittles arranged at 1 inch on center around perimeter of building
Location - address
Location - city Seattle
Location - country United States
Location - state/province Washington
Natural hazard area description The gingerbread house is not located in a flood zone, but it is at risk for
earthquakes, volcano eruptions, and tsunamis.
Seismic zone description Using the USGS Seismic Design Maps, with ASCE 7 (2010), Site Class D, Risk
Category II, and the geographic coordinates of Seattle, the ground motion values
are: SS = 1.527 g, SMS = 1.527 g, SDS = 1.018 g, S1 = 0.574 g, SM1 = 0.860 g, SD1 = 0.574 g
Soil type Site Class D
Height characteristics Average ceiling height [in] 4.84
Building total height [in] 9.68
Number of stories above grade 2
Number of stories below grade 0

Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Simple Example | Step 1: Define Goal and Scope Page 5
Table 2 (cont.). Scope description.

Parameter, Parameter, Parameter, Parameter, Category

Category Category Category Parameter, Category Level 5 Parameter Field
Level 4
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
1. Goal and Scope Project BIM model available N/A
scope (cont.) (cont.) information
Building architect name, N/A
engineer, and/or contractor
Building owner, developer, N/A
and/or manager
Project construction cost N/A $5.00 USD
Project name N/A The Gingerbread House LCA Prototype Building
Rating achieved N/A
Rating scheme N/A
Year of building N/A
commission
Year of construction N/A
Year of occupancy N/A
Year of refurbishment N/A Not applicable (no refurbishment anticipated)
Reference N/A N/A 30
study period
[days]
System Building scope N/A The building scope includes all applicable components from the reporting
boundary* template in the Technical Guidance of the Online Resources, summarized as
follows:
• Substructure: Slabs-On-Grade
• Superstructure: Floor Construction
• Exterior Enclosure: Exterior Walls
• Sitework: Site Improvements
Life cycle modules N/A Includes cycle modules A1 – C4. Module D is not included. Note that while
included modules B1 - B7 are considered in the assessment, only B4 (Replacement) was
assessed to have an impact, and the remaining modules were determined to have
no impact (see Table 4).
Environmental impact N/A Global warming potential
categories assessed
Specific exclusions N/A This assessment excludes:
• Impact of manufacturing supporting machines and products, such as:
• Vehicles used for transportation
• Ovens used for baking
• Lighting needed to assemble the gingerbread house
• Kitchen utensils
• Feeding, housing, and transportation of construction labor
• Impact of ingredient packaging, including disposal
• Energy impacts of installing material replacements (assume that baking is
not needed for replacing materials)
• Energy impact of supplying washing water

* Due to space constraints, the system boundary is not described in detail per the LCA taxonomy guidelines here. Instead, a summary of
the key components are shown.

Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Simple Example | Step 1: Define Goal and Scope Page 6
Step 2: Collect Inventory
The inventory collection involves defining the materials used in the building and relevant
scenarios. Table 3 lists material information about the gingerbread house, and Table 4
describes the scenarios for the materials, including assumptions regarding transportation,
energy, water, and end-of-life. The materials were categorized by building component (per
the Omniclass system) to facilitate later analysis.

Table 3. List of materials and relevant information.

Applicable life cycle stages Building component
Material Life span Building component
Material name Units (see Table 4 for more category (OmniClass
quantity [days] (OmniClass name)
information) Level 1)
Dark Chocolate oz 6 10 A1 - A5, B4, C1 - C4 Substructure Slabs-On-Grade
Icing lb 0.5 10 A1 - A5, B4, C1 - C4 Substructure Foundations
Cardboard (1/4”) in2 100 3000 A1 - A5, C1 - C4 Substructure Foundations
Gingerbread* cups 2.5 10 A1 - A5, B4, C1 - C4 Exterior Enclosure Exterior Walls
Icing lb 1 10 A1 - A5, B4, C1 - C4 Superstructure Floor Construction
Candy Canes each 6 15 A1 - A5, B4, C1 - C4 Site Work Site Improvements
Licorice each 4 15 A1 - A5, B4, C1 - C4 Site Work Site Improvements
Checkpoint: Can you find all the necessary
LCA and building data?
Skittles each 8 15 A1 - A5, B4, C1 - C4 Site Work Site Improvements
Yes, we were able to produce the data that
*To avoid a long list of ingredients, we will assume that the gingerbread dough is pre-made (store-bought). we needed for the inventory. However,
if we hadn’t been able find enough
information about certain materials or if
we were not able to describe the scenarios
in sufficient detail, we would have had to
go back to Step 1 and revise the goal and/
or scope to reflect this. For example, if
we had not been able to determine the
replacement rate of chocolate, we would
have had to revise the scope information in
Step 2. Under ‘Life cycle modules included’
in Table 2, we would note that “Module B4,
Replacement, for chocolate is not included
in this analysis due to lack of available
information about chocolate replacement
rates in gingerbread houses.”

Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Simple Example | Step 2: Collect Inventory Page 7
Table 4. Scenario descriptions for materials by life cycle stage.

Material Scenarios*
Life Cycle Module
Dark Chocolate Gingerbread Icing Candy Canes Licorice Skittles Cardboard (1/4”)
A4: Transport Transport materials from grocery store to kitchen1. Assume that the mode of transportation is car and distance traveled is 5 miles.

A5: Construction 1. Bake gingerbread for 15 min @ 350 degrees F in an electric oven with 15 min of preheating. Assume that oven is at average efficiency and electricity is based on US EPA
installation eGrid region NWPP.
2. Assemble gingerbread house with remaining ingredients by hand on cardboard. No additional energy beyond human labor is needed (no fuel, electricity, or water is
consumed during assembly).
3. Waste: Plastic and other non-recyclable packaging that originally contained the ingredients (materials) is disposed in the trash bin.
4. Water use: Assume that 1 gallon of domestic, unheated water is used to clean the mixing and baking equipment post-assembly.
B1: Use Aromas of gingerbread, chocolate, and sugar in general will be emitted into surrounding environment. Assume that these aromas have a negligible environmental impact.
Assume that cardboard has a negligible environmental impact during use.
Occasional dusting may be required, but environmental impact of dusting is ignored due to lack of data and method to report.
B2: Maintenance Occasional dusting may be required, but environmental impact of dusting is ignored due to lack of data and method to report.

B3: Repair Repair is not anticipated.

B4: Replacement Chocolate replaced 2 Gingerbread Icing replaced 2 times. Candy canes replaced 1 Licorice replaced Skittles replaced 1 No replacement
times. replaced 2 times. time. 1 time. time. needed for cardboard.
B5: Refurbishment Refurbishment is not anticipated.

B6: Operational No energy requirements – this is a passive house.

energy use
B7: Operational No water requirements – gingerbread occupant does not require water-based amenities.
water use
C1: Deconstruction, The gingerbread house will be disposed of in its entirety in the composting bin, which will be taken to the local composting facility. The cardboard will
demolition be disposed of in the
recycling bin.
C2: Transport Transportation to the composting facility will be performed by a collection truck over a distance of 20 miles. Cardboard will be
taken by collection
truck to the recycling
facility, over a distance
of 10 miles.
C3: Waste processing The remains of the gingerbread house will be taken directly to the composting facility. Cardboard will be
sorted, shredded,
pulped, filtered, de-
inked, then finished for
re-use.
C4: Disposal At the composting facility, the remains of the gingerbread house will join the composting feedstock, which will be allowed to mature under ideal Not applicable (final
conditions. product will be used to
make new cardboard).

*The scenario descriptions are all based on common recipes for gingerbread house-making. Description of end-of-life composting processes are based on general information from the EPA. Description
of end-of-life cardboard recycling processes are based on information from Conserve Energy Future.
1Assume that the grocery store is the “factory,” though in reality the factories are meant to be the buildings in which the materials (ingredients) were made.

Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Simple Example | Step 2: Collect Inventory Page 8
Step 3: Perform Impact Assessment
If you are using a software tool to help you perform your LCA, it is unlikely that you will
need to go into as much detail as this step illustrates. This step demonstrates the basic
principles of performing an impact assessment calculation, starting with the environmental
impact factors (LCA source data), determining replacement rates of certain materials, then
performing the mathematical computations.

Step 3.1 Gather environmental impact factors (LCA source data)

Before performing the calculations, we must first obtain the environmental impact factors
for each material collected in Step 2. The environmental impact factors used for this
gingerbread house example are shown in Table 5 (these values were fabricated for this
example).

Due to space constraints, this example groups the impact factors by life cycle stages, and
considers global warming potential (GWP) as the only environmental impact measure.
However, in a comprehensive LCA, you would separate the factors by life cycle module (A1,
A2, A3, etc.), and would likely consider additional impact categories in addition to GWP.

Table 5. Environmental impact factors of materials. Note that these factors were fabricated for this example and have no basis in reality.

Global warming potential [g CO2e/unit of material]

Material Units Production stage Construction stage Use stage End-of-life stage
(A1-A3) (A4-A5) (B1-B7) (C1-C4)
Dark chocolate oz 16 1 0 3
Milk chocolate oz 20 4 0 7
Cardboard, 1/4" in2 0.5 0 0 0.5
Icing (foundation) lbs 6 8 0 3
Gingerbread cup 10 3 0 4
Icing (floor construction) lbs 6 8 0 3
Candy canes each 7 6 0 9
Licorice each 4 2 0 9
Skittles each 8 1 0 7

Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Simple Example | Step 3: Perform Impact Assessment Page 9
Step 3.2 Determine replacement requirements

The next step is to consider how some materials will have to be replaced over the required
service life (and RSP) of 30 days, due to their shorter life spans. The effects of this
replacement are considered under module B4: Replacement, which is within the Use stage.
We will assume that no baking is required to install replacement material.

Here is an example of how to calculate the number of replacements required for the Use
stage:
6 oz of dark chocolate is required for the slab-on-grade. The life span of dark chocolate
is 10 days. After the initial installation, the chocolate will have be replaced two times
over the 30-day required service life of the gingerbread house LCA.
Number of replacements required
= (30 days) / (10 day life span) – 1 instance for initial installation
=3–1
= 2 replacements

Total quantity of chocolate to be replaced = (6 oz) * (2 replacements) = 12 oz

Table 6 presents the number of replacements and quantities needed for all materials in the
use stage.

Table 6. Number of replacements and material quantities needed for the Use stage calculations.
Material quantity at Number of Material quantities for
Life span
Material Units installation [units from replacements use stage [units from the
[days]
the Units column] needed Units column]
Dark chocolate oz 6 10 2 12
Icing (foundation) lbs 0.5 10 2 1
Cardboard, 1/4" in 2
100 3000 0 0
Gingerbread cup 2.5 10 2 5
Icing (floor construction) lbs 1 10 2 2
Candy canes each 6 15 1 6
Licorice each 4 15 1 4
Skittles each 8 15 1 8

Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Simple Example | Step 3: Perform Impact Assessment Page 10
Step 3.3 Calculate material impacts

Now we can apply the environmental impact factors from Table 4 to the material quantities.
Note that in order to comply with the modularity principle (which states that the impact of
a process shall be assigned to the life cycle stage that it influences), the Use stage will need
to include the production and construction stage impacts of the replacements as well as the
end-of-life stage impacts from the initial installation.

An example calculation for dark chocolate is shown as follows:

GWP of production stage = (6 oz) * (16 g CO2e/oz) = 96 g CO2e
GWP of construction stage = (6 oz) * (3 g CO2e/oz) = 18 g CO2e
GWP of use stage = (12 oz) * [ (16 g CO2e from product stage + 3 g CO2e
from construction stage + 3 g CO2e from end-of-
life stage)/ oz]
= (12) * (16 + 3 + 3) = 264 g CO2e
GWP of end-of-life stage = (6 oz) * (3 g CO2e/oz) = 18 g CO2e

The final global warming potential results for all materials and life cycle stages are shown in
Table 7, with the results from above indicated in bold red text.

Table 7. Global warming potential results by life cycle stage.

Global warming potential [g CO2e]

Material Construction stage
Production stage (A1-A3) Use stage (B1-B7) End-of-life stage (C1-C4)
(A4-A5)
Dark chocolate 96 18 264 18
Icing (foundations) 3 4 17 1.5
Cardboard, 1/4" 50 0 0 50
Gingerbread 25 7.5 85 10
Icing (floor construction) 6 8 34 3
Candy canes 42 36 132 54
Licorice 16 8 60 36
Skittles 64 8 128 56

Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Simple Example | Step 3: Perform Impact Assessment Page 11
Step 3.4 Estimate construction impacts

After calculating the material impacts in the previous steps, the next step is to calculate the
energy impacts due to construction (module A5: Construction Installation) as a result of
baking.

In Step 2, we had assumed in the scenarios that the gingerbread would be baked at 350
degrees F in an average efficiency oven using electricity from the NWPP subregion of eGrid.
Preheating the oven would require 15 minutes, and baking would require an additional 15
minutes. The average modern oven is assumed to consume 2400 watts (W) at medium-high
heat1. The greenhouse gas emission rate for the NWPP subregion is 913.4 lb CO2e/MWh.
Thus, the calculation for obtaining the total GHGs or global warming potential produced as
a result of using the oven for 30 minutes or 0.5 hours (h) is:

GWP impact
of baking =

= 498 g CO2 e

This impact will be added to the Construction stage impacts.

Checkpoint: Are you able to calculate the

LCA impacts?
Yes, we were able to calculate the LCA
impacts using a spreadsheet, but if we
were using a software tool that was
unable to complete this step (due to lack
of appropriate material data, or even
technical problems), then we would have
to consider another tool. In that case, we
would go back to Step 1, note the new
software or data under Goal > Background
information on assessment > Source(s) of
environmental impact data, check Step 2 if
necessary, then re-perform Step 3.
1
EnergyUse Calculator, “Electricity usage of an Oven.” http://energyusecalculator.com/electricity_oven.htm
2
US EPA, “eGRID 2014 Summary Tables,” 2014. https://www.epa.gov/energy/egrid-2014-summary-tables

Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Simple Example | Step 3: Perform Impact Assessment Page 12
Step 4: Interpret Results
Step 4.1 Visualize results

After an initial overview of the LCA results (Table 7), a good first step is to visualize the
results by breaking down the environmental impacts by building component, material type,
and/or life cycle stage.

Figure 1 presents a simple overview of the global warming potential results of the materials
by life cycle stage subdivided by building component category and color-coded by material
contribution.

Figure 2 presents a simplified version of Figure 1, but with energy consumption included to
compare with the total material impacts by life cycle stage. Note that there are no impacts
in the Use stage, but a real building would be expected to produce energy impacts as well as
water impacts over the building lifetime.

Building
Life cycle component
stage category Material
Product stage Exterior Enclosure Candy canes
(A1 - A3) Sitework Cardboard, 1/4"

Substructure Dark chocolate

Superstructure Gingerbread

Construction Exterior Enclosure Icing

stage (A4 - A5) Sitework Licorice

Substructure Skittles

Superstructure
Use stage (B1 - Exterior Enclosure
B7) Sitework
Substructure Life cycle stage Flow type
Product stage (A1 - A3) Energy consumption
Superstructure
End-of-life Exterior Enclosure Construction stage (A4 - A5) Materials
stage (C1 - C4) Sitework
Use stage (B1 - B7)
Substructure End-of-life stage (C1 - C4)
Superstructure
0 200 400 600
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
GWP (g CO2e)
GWP (g CO2e)

Figure 1. Gingerbread house example. Global warming potential (GWP) results by Figure 2. Gingerbread house example. Contribution of
life cycle stage and building component category. materials, water use, and energy consumption to overall
GWP of the building.

Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Simple Example | Step 4: Interpret Results Page 13
Step 4.2 Check for errors

Since no other LCAs of gingerbread houses have been published, we can not compare our
results to similar studies to check if our results are in the same ballpark. Instead, we must Checkpoint: Can you find errors in the
ponder if the results make sense. We can consider the following: results?
We did not find errors or suspicious
• If one element in the graphs dominates over the other elements, can you explain why? patterns in the results, but if we did,
we would go back to Step 2, check the
In Figure 1, there is no obvious outlier in the results, which is a good sign. The Use inventory data, and re-perform Step 3.
stage impacts are greater than that of the other stages, which makes sense because
these materials have to be replaced 1 or 2 times during the Use stage (except for
Cardboard).

• Do the contributions from the different elements make sense? Looking at the
material color-coding in Figure 1, we can see that gingerbread appears under
Exterior Enclosure, Skittles appears under Sitework, Dark Chocolate appears under
Substructure, etc., so it appears that the LCA results correctly reflect the materials
assigned to the different building components.

At this point, we don’t see indications for errors, so we can move on to the next part of
interpretation.

Step 4.3 Understand results

To better understand the results, we can perform a sensitivity analysis and uncertainty
Checkpoint: Do you need to understand the
analysis to see how the variables affect the overall results.
importance of certain variables?

Sensitivity analysis: For example, let’s say we want to double the RSP from 30 days You can skip this step if the goal of your
study does not require you to understand
to 60 days. Figure 3 compares the results for these two RSPs. From this figure, we can how certain variables affect the LCA results;
see that the Use stage reflects the increase in RSP as a result of the additional material for example, if you simply need to report
replacements. To quantify the overall effect, we can say that “Doubling the RSP resulted in the carbon footprint of your building.
a 172% increase in Use stage impacts, or a 67% increase in overall impacts.” Since the use However, the goal of performing an LCA is
stage impacts were already a large portion of the overall impacts, one can conclude that the often to inform a more environmentally-
conscious building design or meet
overall results are sensitive to the choice of reference study period. reduction targets. Identifying high-impact
variables can help you achieve these goals
more easily and efficiently.

Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Simple Example | Step 4: Interpret Results Page 14
 Option Life cycle stage
RSP = 30 days Product stage (A1 - A3) 302
Construction stage (A4 - A5) 588
Use stage (B1 - B7) 720
End-of-life stage (C1 - C4) 229
RSP = 60 days Product stage (A1 - A3) 302
Construction stage (A4 - A5) 588
Use stage (B1 - B7) 1,960
End-of-life stage (C1 - C4) 229

0 500 1000 1500 2000

GWP (g CO2e)

Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis of the effect of doubling the reference study period from RSP = 30 days to RSP = 60 days.

Uncertainty analysis: For example, let’s presume that we are uncertain about the cocoa
content in the dark chocolate used for the slab-on-grade. We can explore this uncertainty
by comparing two options for chocolate: dark chocolate versus milk chocolate. The
comparison of the results for these two options is shown in Figure 4. From this figure, we
can observe that milk chocolate has slightly higher impacts than dark chocolate in all four
life cycle stages, but the difference is not too significant. From this comparison, we can
conclude that the overall LCA results are not sensitive to the type of chocolate used for slab-
on-grade, but dark chocolate would be the environmentally preferable option.

Option Life cycle stage Material

Dark Product stage (A1 - A3) Dark chocolate
chocolate Construction stage (A4 - A5) Milk chocolate
Use stage (B1 - B7) Other
End-of-life stage (C1 - C4)
Milk Product stage (A1 - A3)
chocolate Construction stage (A4 - A5)
Use stage (B1 - B7)
End-of-life stage (C1 - C4)

0 200 400 600 800

GWP (g CO2e)

Figure 4. Comparison of two material options for slab-on-grade: dark chocolate vs milk chocolate.

Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Simple Example | Step 4: Interpret Results Page 15
Step 4.4 Develop conclusions

After performing Step 4, we must ask ourselves: Do the results satisfy the goal of the study?
From Step 1, the goal of this example was to “demonstrate the basic steps of performing
an LCA of a building in accordance with the steps outlined in this Practice Guide.” We
Checkpoint: Does your analysis meet the
can conclude that yes, we have accomplished the simple goal of this study, as seen in the goal and scope of your study?
example sections for Steps 1, 2, and 3. We can now move on to Step 5. The goal of this example was facetious, so
it was easily met, but in a real building LCA
you may not meet the goal of your study
on the first try (for example, meeting a
reduction target). You will likely have to
either a) change your design update the
inventory data in Step 2, or b) revise the
goal or scope in Step 1 to reflect changes
in your assumptions. This process would
have to be repeated until you do meet your
stated goal.

Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Simple Example | Step 4: Interpret Results Page 16
Step 5: Report Results
The documentation of information for the gingerbread house example is documented in the
previous steps.
For verification (optional), a sample response to the verification process is shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Sample responses to verification process.

Requirement Response
1. Consistency: Are the system boundaries and scenarios Yes. The goal of the analysis was to “demonstrate the basic steps of
used consistent with the analysis goal and scope? performing an LCA of a building in accordance with the steps outlined
in this Practice Guide,” which aims to clarify best practices in whole
building LCA. The scope of the gingerbread house study included all of
these considerations (as much as possible, since the simplicity of the
gingerbread house limited the full breadth of information that would
normally be present in a real building). Thus, the system boundaries
and scenarios reflect the goal and scope of the study.
2. Data: Is the LCA data used representative of the products No. For the purposes of this example, the LCA data was entirely
being evaluated? Was the data developed in conformance fabricated for all of the materials in this study and not developed in
with ISO 21930? conformance with ISO 21930. The energy and water use data was
based on eGrid, which reflects the geographic region of the study.
3. Scenarios: Are the scenarios representative of practice? The scenarios are fairly representative of typical gingerbread house-
Are the scenarios that were used for different products making practice. Many of the products/materials underwent the same
aligned? scenarios, so they are aligned.
4. Completeness: Does the analysis include all relevant Yes.
components to meet the intentions of the described goal
and scope?

Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: A Simple Example | Step 5: Report Results Page 17