Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:555–568

DOI 10.1007/s11367-016-1044-6

LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

A modeling framework to evaluate sustainability of building

construction based on LCSA
Ya Hong Dong 1,2 & S. Thomas Ng 1

Received: 21 February 2015 / Accepted: 19 January 2016 / Published online: 17 February 2016
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Abstract Conclusions The case study has confirmed that LCSA is fea-
Purpose Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) is a sible. Being one of the first applications of LCSA on building
method that combines three life cycle techniques, viz. envi- construction, this study fulfills the current research gap and
ronmental life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing paves the way for future development of LCSA.
(LCC), and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). This study
is intended to develop a LCSA framework and a case study of Keywords Building . Case study . Life cycle assessment .
LCSA for building construction projects. Life cycle sustainability assessment
Methods A LCSA framework is proposed to combine the
three life cycle techniques. In the modeling phases, three life
cycle models are used in the LCSA framework, namely the Abbreviations
environmental model of construction (EMoC), cost model of CMoC Cost model of construction
construction (CMoC), and social-impact model of construc- EMoC Environment model of construction
tion (SMoC). A residential building project is applied to the GFA Gross floor area
proposed LCSA framework from Bcradle to the end of HKHA Hong Kong Housing Authority
construction^ processes to unveil the limitations and future LCA Environmental life cycle assessment
research needs of the LCSA framework. LCC Life cycle costing
Results and discussion It is found that material extraction and LCI Life cycle inventory
manufacturing account for over 90 % to the environmental LCIA Life cycle impact assessment
impacts while they contribute to 61 % to the construction cost. LCSA Life cycle sustainability assessment
In terms of social impacts, on-site construction performs better LCSD Life cycle sustainability dashboard
than material extraction and manufacturing, and on-site con- LCST Life cycle sustainability triangle
struction has larger contributions to the positive social im- PRH Public rental housing
pacts. The model outcomes are validated through interviews sLCIA Social life cycle impact assessment
with local experts in Hong Kong. The result indicates that the S-LCA Social life cycle assessment
performance of the models is generally satisfactory. SMoC Social-impact model of construction

Responsible editor: Matthias Finkbeiner

1 Introduction
* S. Thomas Ng
tstng@hku.hk
The construction industry is one of the most contributive
and influential sectors to the three pillars of sustainability,
1
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, i.e., environment, economy, and society. According to
Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China UNEP (2014), construction accounts for around 10 % of
2
Faculty of Science and Technology, Technological and Higher the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) and employs
Education Institute of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China over 100 million people. Construction activities are
556
particularly crucial in developing countries. For instance,
about 26 % of the national GDP in China is attributed to
building and construction, and the building floor area is
expected to increase by 30 billion square meters from
2005 to 2020 (Huang et al. 2013). From the perspective of
environmental impacts, buildings account for 40 % of the
world’s material consumption and energy use (Horvath
2004). Cement as one of the most commonly used construc-
tion materials is responsible for 5–7 % of the world anthro-
pogenic carbon emissions (Meyer 2009). The iron and steel
industries also contribute to 6.7 % of the world carbon emis-
sions (WSA 2014). On the other hand, the social impacts of
building and construction shall not be underestimated as
many stakeholders including workers, the local community,
and the society by large are directly and indirectly involved
in the construction industry.
Estimating the three aspects of sustainability can be
achieved by a life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA)
(Finkbeiner et al. 2010; Kloepffer 2008; UNEP/SETAC
2012; Valdivia et al. 2013). LCSA is a comprehensive ap-
proach that embraces the three life cycle techniques, namely
the environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle
costing (LCC), and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA).
LCA (ISO 2006a, b) is a widely recognized method and the
only one standardized, which has been adopted to analyze
the environmental impacts of products. Likewise, LCC has
been developed and used for decades to assess the economic
viability and attractiveness of a scheme. Yet, implementing
LCC alongside with LCA is a relatively new and
underexplored topic (Swarr et al. 2011). As for the social
component, S-LCA is a young instrument which requires
further development (Benoît and Mazijn 2009; Martínez-
Blanco et al. 2014).
This study strives to develop a case study to estimate the
sustainability performance of building construction using
LCSA. A LCSA framework for building construction is de-
veloped to integrate the three life cycle techniques into a con-
sistent framework based on UNEP/SETAC (2012). A public
residential building project is selected as the study case.
Inventory analysis and impact assessment are conducted
based on the three life cycle techniques, and a series of inter-
views with experts are performed to validate the model results.
Lastly, the research findings and the current limitations of
LCSA are discussed.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 General description of LCSA
LCSA serves to integrate the three dimensions of sustainability,
i.e., environment, economy, and society in order to estimate the
sustainability performance throughout the life cycle of a
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:555–568
product. A conceptual formula of LCSA is given by
Finkbeiner et al. (2010), Kloepffer (2008) and UNEP/SETAC
(2012) as:
LCSA ¼ LCA þ LCC þ S−LCA
The four-phase structure of LCA as given in ISO (2006a)
and ISO (2006b) can be applied to LCC and S-LCA, and it
includes: (i) goal and scope definition, (ii) life cycle inventory
(LCI), (iii) life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and (iv) in-
terpretation. As suggested in the guideline released by UNEP/
SETAC (2012) entitled BTowards a Life Cycle Sustainability
Assessment^ (hereafter called the Guideline), LCSA should
also consist of four phases, viz. (i) LCSA goal and scope, (ii)
LCSA inventory, (iii) impact assessment, and (iv) LCSA
interpretation.
Since LCSA combines the three analytical techniques, a
consistent goal and scope is recommended by the Guideline.
A consistent scope in LCSA does necessarily not mean that
the scope should be identical in the three parts (Martínez-
Blanco et al. 2014). Nevertheless, the Guideline recommends
that the overall LCSA system boundary should include all the
processes relevant for at least one of the life cycle techniques.
In the LCSA inventory, due to the quantitative nature of
LCA and LCC, the inventory can be amalgamated to a certain
quantified unit. However, the quantification of social impacts
is a challenging task that deserves further research. The
Guideline recommends that all types of quantitative, semi-
quantitative, and qualitative data be collected throughout the
life cycle. In addition, there is lack of S-LCA data, which
renders the tracing of upstream life cycle stages of a product
more difficult. To this regard, the Guideline suggests consid-
ering both the site-specific data and generic data for data
collection.
The impact assessment of LCSA should generally follow
ISO 14040/44 with the mandatory elements of classification
and characterization. In LCA, the impact assessment is a pro-
cess to extract essential information from an inventory of en-
vironmental interventions (Dong and Ng 2014). According to
the Guideline, impact assessment does not apply to LCC as
the aggregated cost should have already provided a useful
measure for assessing the economic impacts. The Guideline
does not recommend aggregating the results from the three
techniques at the current infancy stage of LCSA.
As stated in the Guideline, there are two critical issues to be
addressed in LCSA interpretation. First, the interpretation
should be conducted in a combined fashion based upon the
LCSA goal and scope definition. The other one is regarding
the data quality which should satisfy the stated requirements.
One of the existing methods to combine the results of the three
aspects is the life cycle sustainability triangle (LCST)—a
graphical tool designed to define the weights of the three as-
pects of sustainability (Finkbeiner et al. 2010). Another
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:555–568
method is the life cycle sustainability dashboard (LCSD)
which provides visualized results of LCSA through a dash-
board with different color scales, while the original values
from the three techniques can be traced (Traverso et al.
2012b). Transparent record of the LCSA procedures and the
results of individual techniques are necessary.
Recent LCSA research studies included conducting case
studies on various product systems, such as on floor covering
(Traverso et al. 2012b), photovoltaic module (Traverso et al.
2012a), remanufactured alternator (Schau et al. 2012),
recycled concrete (Hu et al. 2013), oil waste collection system
(Foolmaun and Ramjeawon 2013; Vinyes et al. 2013), plastic
bottle (Foolmaun and Ramjeeawon 2013), and building (Onat
et al. 2014). In these studies, the LCSA framework was
applied and methods of data collection and impact
assessment were developed. For examples, Vinyes et al.
(2013) proposed a scoring approach and adopted LCST to
assign weighting to each part; Foolmaun and Ramjeeawon
(2013) used the analytical hierarchy process to rank the
LCSA results of alternatives; and Onat et al. (2014) developed
a model based on the economic input-output table. Additional
case studies are in need to steer the LCSA towards a practical
framework (Zamagni et al. 2013).
Being a relatively new technique, LCSA is limited in several
aspects, in particular in the S-LCA part. These include the
quantification of inventory, selection of indicators, methods of
impact assessments, etc. (Benoît and Mazijn 2009; Ekener-
Petersen and Finnveden 2013). The shortages of S-LCA could
even lead to the question of whether LCSA is an appropriate
method for quantifying sustainability [comments attached to
Kloepffer (2008)]. Future development needs of LCSA are
encouraged in Bcase studies, methodological developments,
discussions about data availability, and thus how the present
software tools can deal with such evaluation^ (Zamagni 2012).
2.2 Model development
Three models have been developed by the authors to assess-
ment the environmental, economic, and social aspects of con-
struction projects, and they include the environmental model
of construction (EMoC) (Dong and Ng 2015a), cost model of
construction (CMoC), and social-impact model of construc-
tion (SMoC) (Dong and Ng 2015b). The three models share a
consistent scope of Bcradle-to-end of construction,^ including
material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, and on-site
construction.
The design of the three models is presented in Fig. 1. The
three models are built in Microsoft Excel with a set of
worksheets to fulfill various functions, viz. introduction, data
input, data documentation, calculation, and presentation of
results. The functions of the worksheets of the three models
are described in Table 1.
557
EMoC (Dong and Ng 2015a) is a LCA model to estimate
the environmental performance of a building construction pro-
ject. The model is capable of computing over 100 construction
materials and processes. The impact assessment method
adopted in EMoC is ReCiPe (Goedkoop et al. 2009) which
can provide results of 18 impact categories in both the mid-
point and endpoint levels. Table 2 shows the impact categories
(midpoint) and damage categories (endpoint) in ReCiPe. All
the 18 impact categories and 3 damage categories are provided
in EMoC. The ReCiPe endpoint single score is also calculated
in EMoC to depict the overall environmental performance.
EMoC can provide results for an entire building construction
project, an apartment unit, and a square meter of floor area.
CMoC can assess the construction cost and external environ-
mental cost of a building construction project. The results of
construction costs in CMoC are provided for over 100 construc-
tion materials and processes. CMoC is designed in a steady-
state that ignores several financial variables, such as time
discounting, fluctuation, inflation, etc. Swarr et al. (2011) sug-
gested eliminating the impact of discounting in LCC if the stud-
ied system is less than 2 years. As CMoC only covers the
upstream cradle-to-end of construction and neglects the down-
stream processes of usage and maintenance, the time coverage
of the model is normally within 2 years. The results from EMoC
can be used as an input in CMoC to calculate the external costs
due to climate change, particulate matter formation, and acidi-
fication. However, to avoid this double counting in LCSA due
to the inclusion of external costs of environmental, CMoC gen-
erates results of construction cost and external cost separately. If
both environmental impacts and costs are estimated in a LCSA
study, only real money flows should be considered (Swarr et al.
2011). The results given in CMoC are provided based on the
unit of a square meter of floor area and a building construction
project. The currency in CMoC is Hong Kong dollar (HK$).
SMoC (Dong and Ng 2015b) is to assess the social impact
of a construction project by considering the cradle-to-end of
construction processes. A new sLCIA method developed by
(Dong and Ng 2015b) is used in SMoC. Since the operation
and maintenance phase is not considered in SMoC, the model
includes three stakeholders relevant to building construction,
i.e., worker, local community, and society while customers are
excluded at the current stage of development. Thirteen sub-
categories are selected according to the availability of indica-
tors and relevance to building construction projects. The de-
scription of the subcategories and indicators is shown in
Table 3. The sLCIA method includes the following steps:
characterization, normalization, and weighting. The character-
ization is to convert the social information into interpretable
indicators which can reflect a list of impacts. The normaliza-
tion is to rescale the characterization results into a comparable
range, i.e., from −1 to 1, based on the national statistics. For
example, the Freedom of Association and Collective
Bargaining (FACB) score, which ranges from 0 to 10, is
558
Fig. 1 Model designs of a EMoC (Dong and Ng 2015a), b CMoC, and c SMoC (Dong and Ng 2015b)
normalized to −1 to 1 in sLCIA. Weighting is assigned to
modify the normalization results according to the importance
of subcategories. The weighting factors are obtained from a
questionnaire survey implemented with over 50 experts in
Hong Kong (Dong and Ng 2015b). The weighting factors
range from 1 (very unimportant) to 5 (very important). Thus,
the weighting results range from −5 to 5. The single score is
then calculated by aggregating the weighting results of the 13
subcategories.
In SMoC, the national statistics are normalized into the
range from −1 to 1 as described above. The normalized na-
tional indicator values are documented in the BNational^
worksheet. If the project adopts a material that is imported
from a country, the corresponding normalized national indica-
tor value will then be used to represent the background value
of the material. The normalized indicator value is then multi-
plied with the cost percentage (weighting) to represent the
social performance of the material in the studied project. The
weighting of on-site construction is calculated as
100%  ∑nk¼1 Cost%k , where Cost%k refers to the percentage
of cost due to the kth material. The location of the construction
project is selected in the BInput^ worksheet. Similar to mate-
rials, the normalized national indicator value is assigned to the
construction stage of the studied project. A list of
environment-friendly on-site construction processes are pro-
vided in the Input worksheet. The user can indicate if the
studied project involves the listed environment-friendly pro-
cesses. The social performance of on-site construction can
then be adjusted if the environment-friendly processes are
included in the project. By aggregating the social impacts of
materials and on-site construction, a SMoC single score can
be derived. The assessment in SMoC is based on the unit of a
building construction project rather than a square meter of
floor area, as a few subcategories, e.g., FACB, cultural heri-
tage, and local employment, can hardly be linked to any quan-
titative units. Further details of the sLCIA method and SMoC
can be found in (Dong and Ng 2015b).
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:555–568
2.3 Assessment framework of LCSA
The four-phase structure as given in ISO 14040 has be-
come a norm when conducting LCA. While LCSA com-
bines the three parts of sustainability into a consistent
framework, more details should be provided to specify
the interactions among the three life cycle techniques as
well as the iterative phases.
In LCSA, a consistent goal and scope should be defined so
that the results of the three parts can be properly interpreted.
Among the four phases of the life cycle techniques, LCI and
LCIA are the modeling phases in which the model structure is
established and a large number of calculations are performed.
Bozhilova-Kisheva et al. (2012) applied an integrated LCI
template using the input-output tables, whereas in S-LCA,
only working hour was included while the other categories
were ignored. Social impacts can be linked to a quantitative
functional unit once the data is collected for each phase of the
product life cycle.
In Fig. 2, a LCSA framework is proposed to integrate the
three life cycle models. The LCSA framework follows ISO
14040 and UNEP/SETAC (2012) to include the goal and
scope definition, LCI, LCIA, and interpretation. Heijungs et
al. (2010) proposed a new LCA which consists of three
phases, i.e., goal and scope definition, modeling, and interpre-
tation, whereby LCI and LCIA are merged into the modeling
phase. In this study, LCI and LCIA are combined through the
developed life cycle models. The first phase is to define the
goal and scope, which may include the study objectives, sys-
tem boundary, target audience, functional unit, etc. The scope
should, therefore, be consistent across the three techniques.
In the modeling phases, the three developed life cycle
models are used to facilitate evaluations, i.e., EMoC is
adopted to estimate the environmental impacts of building
construction, CMoC is used for the economic aspect, and
SMoC is to address the social aspect. The three models share
a consistent scope, i.e., from cradle-to-end of construction.
Table 1 Functional worksheets in EMoC, CMoC, and SMoC

Function EMoC CMoC SMoC

Worksheet Description Worksheet Description Worksheet Description

Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:555–568

Introduction Welcome To introduce the model structure and provide Welcome To introduce the model structure and provide Welcome To introduce the model structure and provide
guidance guidance guidance
Data collection Input To collect project data of a building project, Input To collect project data of a building project, Input To collect project data of a building project,
including project information, resource including project information, resource including project information, cost percentage,
consumption, transportation, equipment consumption, material, plant, labor rate country of origin, inclusion of construction
operation activities
Background data ReCiPe To provide the normalization and weighting Resource To provide the cost data of fuel and water sLCIA To provide the weighting factors of the sLCIA
documentation factors of ReCiPe method
Material To provide LCIA results of construction Material To provide the cost data of a list of materials National To provide the normalized national statistics
materials extracted from SimaPro and on the 13 impact categories
calculated based on ReCiPe worksheet
Energy To provide LCIA results of electricity, diesel Plant To provide the cost data of equipment Construction To provide the background data for on-site
and gasoline extracted from SimaPro and construction practices
calculated based on ReCiPe worksheet
Engine To provide LCIA results of fuel combustion Labor To provide the labor rate
in engines calculated based on ReCiPe and
Energy worksheets
Plant To provide LCIA results of operating 1 h of Waste treatment To provide the cost data of waste treatment
construction equipment calculated based on methods
ReCiPe and Engine worksheets
Truck To provide LCIA results of trucks extracted Externalities To provide the external cost data
from SimaPro and calculated based on
ReCiPe worksheet
Calculation Concrete To calculate the LCIA results of concrete work Result To calculate and present the construction cost Calculation To calculate the social impacts
Other To calculate the LCIA results of ground, masonry,
surface works
Presentation of Result To present LCIA results of construction processes Result To present the sLCIA results of construction
results processes
559
560 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:555–568

Table 2 Impact categories and damage categories of the LCIA method
of ReCiPe (Goedkoop et al. 2009)
Damage category Impact categorya
Human health Climate change (human health)
Ozone depletion
Human toxicity
Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation
Ionizing radiation
Ecosystems Climate change (ecosystems)
Terrestrial acidification
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Marine ecotoxicity
Agricultural land occupation
Urban land occupation
Natural land transformation
Resources Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
a
Water depletion and marine eutrophication are not listed in this table as
the two impact categories are not considered in the endpoint assessment
The input data can be shared in the three models. The outputs
of CMoC can be used as inputs in SMoC.
The interpretation of the model results shall be conducted in
an integrated way based on the LCSA goal and scope. In addi-
tion, the results of the three aspects can be examined in a com-
bined fashion and hotspots can then be detected. In order to
validate the LCSA study, critical review should be conducted.
The proposed framework inherits the iterative nature of
LCA, i.e., each phase can be revised at any time during the
LCSA study, which guarantees the quality of the LCSA study.
For example, the scope can be refined after interpretation,
while any missing data can be supplemented in modeling
phases. Based on the proposed LCSA framework, the four-
phase structure is adapted and the procedures to conduct a
LCSA study are given in Table 4.
3 Case study
3.1 Goal and scope definition
The studied building construction project is a public rental
housing (PRH) project developed by the Hong Kong
Housing Authority (HKHA). The project is located in a rede-
velopment area in the ex-airport site in Hong Kong. The pro-
ject provides over 13,000 apartments in 14 blocks with 35–40
floors. The project was completed in 2013 to accommodate
over 30,000 lower-income residents.
The project applies a layout of the New Harmony type that
uses a variety of precast elements, e.g., precast façade, bath-
room, semi-precast slab, etc. These precast components were
produced in the precast yards in Guangdong Province near
Hong Kong and were transported to the construction site in
Hong Kong. The project is also known to have incorporated
certain environment-friendly design features, such as renew-
able energy, natural ventilation, marine mud, rainwater har-
vesting, etc.
In the case study, the three models are used to estimate the
sustainability performance of this PRH project. The aim of

Table 3 Stakeholder and

subcategory considered in SMoC
(extracted from Dong and Ng
2015b)
Stakeholder Subcategory Indicator
Worker Freedom of association and collective FACB right violations
bargaining
Child labor Percentage of child labor
Fair salary Comply with minimum regulation = 1;
not comply = −1
Working hours Working hour > 60 h = −1; <60 h = 1a
Forced labor Percentage of forced labor
Equal opportunities/discrimination Social institutions and gender index (SIGI)
Health and safety Fatality rate
Local Access to material resources Improved sanitation facilities, percentage of
community population with access
Cultural heritage Protection = 1; no change = 0; damage = −1
Safe/healthy living conditions Reliability of the police services
Community engagement Index of transparency of policymaking
Local employment Unemployment rate
Society Public commitments to sustainability issues Obligation on public sustainability reporting
a
The recommended working time per week in Hong Kong is 48 h (LD 2012), and the maximum limit of 60 h is
proposed by the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU)
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:555–568 561

Fig. 2 The proposed LCSA

framework. Arrows refer to the
information flow among phases

this case study is to examine the sustainability performance of
the PRH project, as well as to test the three models: EMoC,
CMoC, and SMoC.
The study scope basically covers the cradle-to-end of con-
struction processes from raw material extraction, material
transportation, and material manufacturing to the on-site in-
stallation. As shown in Fig. 3, the LCA covers the construc-
tion processes related to building structure, while the environ-
mental impacts of interior (e.g., door, furniture), landscape,
and building services (lift, drainage system, air conditioner)
are excluded. On the other hand, they are covered by LCC and
S-LCA. The stakeholders being analyzed in S-LCA include
workers (in contractor, subcontractor, etc.), the local commu-
nity (in Hong Kong and places of manufacturers), and the
society (in Hong Kong and places of manufacturers).
As recommended in the LCSA Guideline, the inventory
and impact indicators should be related to a common product
functional unit. The three techniques can share a consistent
functional unit of a building construction project. While the
results generated by EMoC and CMoC can be linked to the
quantity of unit, the SMoC results represent the social perfor-
mance of the entire building construction project.

Table 4 Procedures of LCSA

using EMoC, CMoC, and SMoC Phase Key points

Goal and scope definition Determination of the aim of the study

Identification of the scope of the study
Specification of the target audience
Determination of the functional unit
Other issues as specified in ISO 14040 and ISO 14044
LCA LCC S-LCA
LCI Collection of project data based on the BInput^ worksheets of the three models
Input data in EMoC Input data in CMoC Input data in SMoC
LCIA Modeling in EMoC Modeling in CMoC Modeling in SMoC
Interpretation Combination of results of the three domains
Other interpreting issues as specified in ISO 14040 and ISO 14044
562
Fig. 3 The ‘cradle-to-end of construction’ system boundary of LCA, LCC, and S-LCA of the PRH building project
3.2 Life cycle inventory
Project data was collected through a questionnaire survey to
the project manager for the general project information as well
as material and resource consumption (Dong and Ng 2015a).
The cost information was solicited from HKHA (2005). The
information related to on-site labor and waste management
was gathered from a project manager. For the input in S-
LCA, the inputs were obtained from CMoC and HKHA
(2005) (Dong and Ng 2015b). Details of the source of input
data are given in Table 5. The key input data are summarized
in Table 6. The data are then entered into the three models:
EMoC, CMoC, and SMoC.
3.3 Life cycle impact assessment
The results obtained from the three models are summarized in
Table 7. For the environmental impact, the entire building
project emits 2.0E08 kg CO2 eq, which is equal to the carbon
stored in 200 ha of a high-density forest. For 1 m2 of floor
area, the carbon emission is 637.4 kg CO2 eq (Dong and Ng
2015a). The energy consumption for the entire building
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:555–568
project is 5.3E07 and 170.7 kg oil eq per square meter of floor
area (Dong and Ng 2015a). In terms of total emissions, the
endpoint score of the project is 2.3E07 pt, which is mostly
caused by the damage to human health resulting from carbon
emissions and particulate matter formation during the material
stage.
The total cost of building construction project is HK$
2.33E09 (US dollar 3.0E10) and the cost per square meter is
HK$7,893 (US dollar 1,018). Of which, 61 % is due to the
material (including equipment, waste treatment, etc.) while
the remaining 39 % is caused by on-site labor. The external cost
due to carbon dioxide is HK$ 126 per m2 of gross floor area
(GFA), which is 1.6 % of the total costs. If the external costs of
the additional two environmental impacts (i.e., acidification and
particulate matter) are considered, then the external costs will
account 8 % of the total construction costs. The external costs
calculated in CMoC are excluded in the following LCSA inter-
pretation to avoid double counting of environmental impacts.
For S-LCA, the normalization results range from −1 to 1.
The positive normalization results represent a positive social
impact and vice versa. The total score ranges from −5 to 5,
with 5 denoting the best performance and −5 being the worst.
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:555–568 563

Table 5 Information of project

data collection in LCSA
(summarized based on (Dong and
Ng 2015a; Dong and Ng 2015b))
Techniques Project information Data source of project data
LCA User profile Questionnaire to project manager
General project information Questionnaire to project manager
Total resource consumption Questionnaire to project manager
Concrete type and amount Questionnaire to project manager
Transportation Questionnaire to project manager
Environmental protection Questionnaire to project manager
Equipment operation Questionnaire to project manager
Other works, e.g., ground work, masonry work Questionnaire to project manager
LCC Building materials and components (HKHA 2005)
Equipment operation Input in EMoC
Labor time and number Questionnaire to project manager
Waste treatment Questionnaire to project manager
S-LCA Cost percentage Results from CMoC
Country of origin Estimated based on (HKHA 2005)
On-site construction activities Estimated based on (HKHA 2005)

The SMoC score is 2.91, with 49, 40, and 11 % being con-
tributed from worker, local community, and society, respec-
tively. The positive results are largely caused by the applica-
tion of a set of environment-friendly, on-site construction ac-
tivities, and the inclusion of environment-friendly construc-
tion activities has led to a 44 % improvement on the SMoC
score (Dong and Ng 2015b). The relevant stakeholders can
generally benefit from the involvement of environment-
friendly on-site construction activities since noise, dust, and
other pollutants can be significantly reduced.
3.4 Interpretation
The results from the three models are further analyzed in
Fig. 4. The material stage includes raw material extraction
and material manufacturing. On-site construction refers to
the activities directly related to construction, including
transportation of materials from a factory to construction site,
on-site installation, on-site labor, and waste treatment of con-
struction materials. It is found that the environmental impacts
of the studied building construction project are mainly due to
the material stage, which accounts for over 90 % in the three
damage categories, while on-site construction only represents
less than 10 % of the total environmental impacts. As com-
pared to the environmental aspect, the costs are about 61 %
caused by material stage and on-site construction is responsi-
ble for 39 %, being largely attributed to the labor costs which
are 33 % of the total construction cost. The overall social
impacts of the studied project are positive. The positive effects
are mainly due to the on-site construction. In terms of social
impacts to worker, the on-site construction contributes to 69 %
of the positive social performance, while the material stage
only has 31 % contribution. The positive score of local com-
munity is 83 % due to the on-site construction, and only 17 %

Table 6 Key input data to the

three models (inputs of EMoC EMoC and CMoC SMoC
and CMoC are extracted from
Dong and Ng 2015a; inputs of Item Amount Item Amount (%) Country of origin
SMoC are extracted from Dong
and Ng 2015b) Electricity 2.8E06 kWh Piling 8.76 China
Diesel 9.3E05 L External wall 8.19 China
Water 2.6E05 L Frame and slabs 6.17 China
Rebar 3.3E04 t Electrical services 6.29 China
Concrete 1.5E05 m3 Pluming and disposal 4.16 China
Precast:cast in situ 7:13 Internal walls 3.70 China
Wood formwork 5.3E06 kg Doors and shutters 3.60 China
Steel formwork 3.6E04 t Internal wall finishes 2.12 China
Transport precast 135 km Lifts 2.63 China
Transport rebar 40 km Windows 1.64 China
Transport formwork 70 km Electricity 0.18 HKSAR
564 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:555–568

Table 7 The modeling results of the studied PRH project

Environmental Economic Socialb

Category Unit Amount Category Amount Category Amount

Midpoint Construction cost Normalization
(HK$)

Climate change kg CO2 eq 2.0E + 08 Foundation 2.45E + 08 Freedom of association and 0.09
collective bargaining
Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq 1.3E + 01 Carcase 5.63E + 08 Child labor 0.74
Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 8.8E + 07 Finishing 9.79E + 07 Fair salary 0.77
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 7.1E + 05 Service 3.91E + 08 Working hours 0.95
Particulate matter formation kg PM10 eq 5.6E + 05 Other material 3.43E + 07 Forced labor −0.37
Ionizing radiation kg U235 eq 2.8E + 07 Carbon 3.91E + 07 Equal opportunities/discrimination 0.15
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 6.5E + 05 Particulate matter 9.79E + 07 Health and safety 1.00
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 9.3E + 04 Acidification 7.34E + 07 Access to material resources 0.84
(e.g., sanitation, school)
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 3.1E + 04 Labor 7.83E + 08 Cultural heritage 0.27
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 3.1E + 04 Plant rental 1.22E + 08 Safe/healthy living conditions 1.00
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 3.0E + 06 Community engagement 1.00
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 3.1E + 06 Local employment 1.00
Agricultural land occupation m2a 8.5E + 07 Public commitments to sustainability 1.00
issues
Urban land occupation m2a 2.4E + 06
Natural land transformation m2 3.1E + 04
Water depletion m3 2.0E + 06
Metal depletion kg Fe eq 2.0E + 08
Fossil depletion kg oil eq 5.3E + 07
Endpoint Endpoint Weighting
Human health DALY 4.7E + 02 Material 1.42E + 09 Worker 1.18
Ecosystem species·year 2.6E + 00 On-site 9.05E + 08 Local community 1.42
Resource US$ 8.5E + 08 External 1.22E + 08 Society 0.31
Total Total Total
Score pt 2.3E + 07 Costa 2.33E + 09 Score 2.91
a
External costs are excluded
b
The normalization results ranges from −1 to 1, with 1 being the best social performance; the score ranges from −5 to 5, with 5 being the best social
performance

are contributed from material stage. On the other hand, the
positive score for the stakeholder of society is 100 % contrib-
uted from the on-site construction.
3.5 Critical review and reporting
As stated in ISO 14040, critical review is required to guarantee
the quality of an LCA study when LCA is used for public
assertions and comparisons. Since the case study here is only
for demonstration and testing purposes, the critical review is
to validate the research outcomes and collect opinions from
different sectors.
A validation interview was performed, and five experts
were invited to participate in the validation interview. These
participants were selected based on their professional experi-
ence in the local construction industry and knowledge about
sustainable development. Besides, these five experts can rep-
resent the views of different sectors. Table 8 gives the details
of the selected interviewees.
In the interview, the LCSA framework was introduced and
the three models were presented. The interviewees were then
asked to fill in a questionnaire to indicate their opinions on the
research design, model applications, and the benefits of this
research. The questionnaire is composed of nine questions.
The first question is about the profile of the interviewees.
Questions 2 to 8 are multiple choice questions, and the inter-
viewees were asked to indicate their satisfaction of the re-
search outcomes in a five-grade Likert scale with 5
representing strongly satisfied or strongly agree while 1
denoting strongly dissatisfied or strongly disagree. The last
question (question 9) is an open-ended question to allow the
participants expressing their views on the developed models
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:555–568 565

Fig. 4 Contributions from the

material stage (including material
extraction and manufacturing)
and on-site construction to the
sustainability performance of the
residential building construction
project

and giving suggestions for the future implementations of the
proposed LCSA framework freely. The questionnaire of vali-
dation interview is attached in the Electronic Supplementary
Material.
In terms of model design, the interviewees indicated that
the developed models are generally satisfactory (Table 9).
However, the interviewees also pointed out the limitations
and shortages of this study. For example, interviewee P2
was doubtful about with the reliability of the assessment as
EMoC adopted overseas databases which may not be able to
reflect the local condition. Interviewees P4 and P5 contended
that the social impacts of a building construction project are
extremely complicated, but SMoC simplifies the problem by
adopting the national average social conditions. Another con-
cern was on how to combine the three techniques, and inter-
viewee P1 proposed leaving the choice of assigning the
weightings to users rather than predefining any weighting
factors.
The applicability of the developed models was evaluated
by the interviewees. In general, the interviewees agreed to
apply the three life cycle models to both residential and
commercial sectors. They considered that there is no signifi-
cant discrepancy between different building projects in terms
of data input and result interpretation. However, interviewee
P1 questioned the applicability of the models in commercial
buildings, as currently there is no incitement to apply such a
package of models in commercial buildings. On the other
hand, HKHA should play a leading role in sustainable build-
ing as almost 50 % of residential buildings in Hong Kong are
developed by HKHA.
The interviewees agreed that the LCSA framework can
improve the understanding of building sustainability. The in-
terviewees also favored the idea of developing a package of
models to quantify the life cycle impacts of building projects.
The overall performance of the developed models is fairly
satisfactory.
4 Discussion
The scopes of the three models are in general consistent, while
the unit processes covered in the three models are slightly

Table 8 Profiles of interviewees

Sector Interviewee Organization Position

Private P1 Engineering consultancy firm Senior consultant

Public P2 Statutory body Director
P3 Statutory body Research officer
Academic P4 Tertiary education institute Assistant professor
P5 Tertiary education institute Assistant professor
566 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:555–568

Table 9 Results of validation

interview Category Criteria P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 Mean

Model designa User friendly 3.0 3.7 3.3 5.0 4.8 4.0
Reliable assessment 3.3 3.0 3.7 5.0 4.2 3.8
Availability of input 3.3 3.7 2.7 4.7 4.8 3.8
Completeness 4.0 4.7 2.7 5.0 4.7 4.2
Sufficient knowledge 3.3 3.3 4.7 4.3 4.8 4.1
No redundant information 3.3 4.7 4.0 4.0 4.7 4.1
Applicability Applicability to public sector 4 4 4 5 5 4.4
Applicability to private sector 3 4 4 5 5 4.2
Applicability to commercial 2 4 4 5 5 4.0
Applicability of LCSA to HK 4 5 3 5 4 4.2
Overall performance Improvement of understanding 4 5 4 4 4 4.2
Overall performance 4 3 3 5 4.5 3.9
a
The average of the interview results of individual life cycle models

different. LCA considers the processes that are directly related
to the building construction of the structure of PRH project.
The manufacturing of building services, furniture, and the
materials used in landscape is however excluded. Analyses
in LCC and S-LCA encompass the costs and social impacts
of building services, interior, and landscape. In addition, S-
LCA also considers the impacts to stakeholders, i.e., worker,
local community, and society.
This study considers the upstream life cycle stages of build-
ing construction and excludes the building operation and
maintenance. This limitation was pointed out by interviewees
in the validation interview. The exclusion of downstream
stages may lead to inappropriate decision. For example, a
building project may spend extra money in energy saving,
while the benefits of using additional equipment for energy
saving cannot be detected by EMoC. To this regard, future
research is required to include the entire life cycle stages of
buildings.
In EMoC, non-local databases are used for most of mate-
rials and transportation modes, when localized data is missing.
The adoption of less representative overseas data was criti-
cized by interviewees. Although effort has been paid to collect
data from local concrete suppliers, data of other materials is
still lacking. Therefore, the establishment of a local LCA da-
tabase for building construction materials and other relevant
processes is strongly encouraged.
Previous studies (Martínez-Blanco et al. 2014; Schau et al.
2012; Udo de Haes 2008) revealed that S-LCA is a limitation
of LCSA, and this is also mentioned in the LCSA Guideline.
Since LCA, which is the foundation of all the life cycle tech-
niques, is intended to be a quantitative method, the impacts are
linked to a functional unit of the studied product. On the other
hand, quantification of indicators in S-LCA requires addition-
al efforts in developing a sLCIA method and collecting data
that cannot be found in the current available databases. In
some situations when quantified information cannot be
collected, the quantitative assessment in S-LCA has to be
compensated by qualitative and semi-quantitative indicators.
This study strives to evaluate social impacts quantitatively,
notwithstanding the impracticality of quantifying a few sub-
categories which necessitates the use of a binary scale (i.e., –1
or 1). In SMoC, the method of assessing social impacts was
partly criticized by the interviewees. The oversimplification of
using national average to represent a plant or a company may
not be helpful, as there may be unbalanced development
among regions. The lack of available S-LCA data is a limita-
tion, despite collecting data of all the unit processes along a
product’s life cycle chain is tedious. While a good start is to
establish a sector-based database of S-LCA like SHDB, it is
indispensable to collect primary data.
The success of LCA can largely be attributed to the simple
and effective modeling and calculating procedures, in partic-
ular, the adoption of the LCI databases can considerably re-
duce the time and cost consumed in an LCA study. Similarly,
LCSA may become a popular method provided reliable
modeling approaches and databases are developed for LCC
and S-LCA. Future research on S-LCA is encouraged to pro-
mote the implementation of LCSA. On one hand, if LCSA
inherits the merits of LCA, it should provide a quick estima-
tion in quantity. To this regard, it is necessary to quantify the
social impacts, which is indeed the focus of the present study.
On the other hand, if some social impacts cannot be described
quantitatively, literal descriptions would be needed.
Meanwhile, the possible solution to resolve this issue is to
provide the quantitative and qualitative results with descrip-
tions and background information.
How to combine the three techniques is still an unsolved
problem in LCSA. Weighting across the three aspects is not
recommended by the Guideline. The interviewees suggested
leaving the choice of weighting to users. In addition, pub-
lished methods to combine the three aspects can be reviewed.
Another method is through a questionnaire survey, as it can
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:555–568
solicit the opinions from stakeholders or experts on the inte-
gration of the three aspects.
The results in this study reveal that the material stage and
on-site construction have distinct impacts on the environment,
economy, and society. The environmental impacts from
cradle-to-end of construction are mainly caused by the mate-
rial stage in which cement and steel are manufactured. On the
other hand, the positive social impacts are greatly contributed
by on-site construction, while the material stage has relatively
poor social performance. The results indicate that in order to
achieve the goal of sustainable construction, improvement
should be made on the material stage in both environmental
and social aspects.
In general, the academic sector values the methodology
and results positively, while the consultancy firm and the stat-
utory body would consider the models less user-friendly. This
finding indicates that despite the developed models and LCSA
framework contributes to the academic realm, extra effort is
needed to implement the LCSA framework in the construction
industry in practice.
As compared to the building assessment scheme in Hong
Kong, viz. the Building Environmental Assessment Method
Plus (BEAM Plus) (HKGBC 2012), the LCSA framework
and life cycle models in this study cover 26 % of the scores
in BEAM Plus New Buildings. The evaluation methods in this
study can supplement to BEAM Plus by providing quantified
potential impacts of building construction in terms of the three
aspects of sustainability.
5 Conclusions
In this study, a LCSA framework is developed to combine the
three life cycle techniques, namely LCA, LCC, and S-LCA for
building construction projects. The framework follows the
ISO 14040/44 and UNEP/SETAC LCSA Guideline to em-
brace the four iterative phases. The modeling phases of LCI
and LCIA are conducted by three models, i.e., EMoC, CMoC,
and SMoC. The quantitative analyses on environmental, eco-
nomic, and social aspects are carried out using the three
models for a residential building project. The scope covers
the cradle-to-end of construction processes. The results of
the material stage (i.e., material extraction and manufacturing)
and on-site construction are compared. It is found that the
material stage is the primary contributor towards environmen-
tal impacts, while on-site construction has more contributions
to construction costs due to the cost of on-site labor. The social
impact of the studied project is positive as on-site construction
can benefit workers, the local community, and the society. To
improve the sustainability performance of the studied project,
more attention should be paid to the material stage on the
environmental and social aspects.
567
The interview with experts confirmed that the developed
models and proposed framework can contribute towards a
more sustainable construction industry. Regarding the combi-
nation of the three aspects, the interviewees proposed leaving
the choice of combination method to users rather than
predefining any weightings of the three aspects. The data
availability is also a concern that can largely determine the
quality of assessment, and the adoption of non-local LCI da-
tabases and national social statistics is criticized by inter-
viewees. The developed models and LCSA framework have
academic contributions, while their implementation in con-
struction industry would require extra research effort. The
proposed framework can be a supplement to BEAM Plus—
the building assessment scheme in Hong Kong. Being one of
the first attempts to implementing LCSA in building construc-
tion, this study fills the research gap by providing a practical
framework and a case study of LCSA.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the Hong Kong
Housing Authority for the support on this research. The work presented
here was financially supported by Research Grants Council (RGC) under
the General Research Fund (Grant No. 7160/11) and the HKU CRCG
Seed Funding for Basic Research (Grant No. 201111159093).
Compliance with ethical standards The authors declare that they have
no conflict of interest. All procedures followed were in accordance with
the ethical standards of the Human Research Ethics Committee for Non-
clinical Faculties, The University of Hong Kong. Informed consent was
obtained from all participants for being included in this study.
References
Benoît C, Mazijn B (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of
products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Sustainable Product
and Consumption Branch, Paris
Bozhilova-Kisheva KP, Hu M, van Roekel E, Olsen SI (2012) An inte-
grated life cycle inventory for demolition processes in the context of
life cycle sustainability assessment. Paper presented at the
International Symposium on Life Cycle Assessment and
Construction—Civil Engineering and Buildings, Nantes
Dong YH, Ng ST (2014) Comparing the midpoint and endpoint ap-
proaches based on ReCiPe—a study of commercial buildings in
Hong Kong. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1409–1423
Dong YH, Ng ST (2015a) A life cycle assessment model for evaluating
the environmental impacts of building construction in Hong Kong.
Build Environ 89:183–191
Dong YH, Ng ST (2015b) A social life cycle assessment model for
building construction in Hong Kong. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:
1166–1180
Ekener-Petersen E, Finnveden G (2013) Potential hotspots identified by
social LCA—part 1: a case study of a laptop computer. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 18:127–143
Finkbeiner M, Schau EM, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life
cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2:3309–3322
Foolmaun RK, Ramjeawon T (2013) Life cycle sustainability assess-
ments (LCSA) of four disposal scenarios for used polyethylene tere-
phthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Environ Dev Sustain 15:783–
806
568
Foolmaun RK, Ramjeeawon T (2013) Comparative life cycle assessment
and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) bottles in Mauritius. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:155–171
Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van
Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008. Netherlands
Heijungs R, Huppes G, Guinée JB (2010) Life cycle assessment and
sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies.
Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis.
Polym Degrad Stab 95:422–428
HKGBC (2012) Building environmental assessment method BEAM plus
new buildings version 1.2. Hong Kong Green Building Council,
HKSAR
HKHA (2005) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC)
study of building materials and components. Hong Kong Housing
Authority, Hong Kong
Horvath A (2004) Construction materials and the environment. Annu Rev
Environ Resour 29:181–204
Hu M, Kleijn R, Bozhilova-Kisheva KP, Di Maio F (2013) An approach
to LCSA: the case of concrete recycling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:
1793–1803
Huang T, Shi F, Tanikawa H, Fei J, Han J (2013) Materials demand and
environmental impact of buildings construction and demolition in
China based on dynamic material flow analysis. Resour Conserv
Recy 72:91–101
ISO (2006a) ISO 14040: international standard. In: Environmental man-
agement—life cycle assessment—principles and framework.
International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva
ISO (2006b) ISO 14044: international standard. In: Environmental man-
agement—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines.
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J
Life Cycle Assess 13:89–95
LD (2012) Report of the policy study on standard working hours. Hong
Kong
Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Muñoz P, Antón A, Traverso M,
Rieradevall J, Finkbeiner M (2014) Application challenges for the
social life cycle assessment of fertilizers within life cycle sustain-
ability assessment. J Clean Prod 69:34–48
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:555–568
Meyer C (2009) The greening of the concrete industry. Cem Concr
Compos 31:601–605
Onat NC, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2014) Integrating triple bottom line
input–output analysis into life cycle sustainability assessment frame-
work: the case for US buildings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1488–
1505
Schau EM, Traverso M, Finkbeiner M (2012) Life cycle approach to
sustainability assessment: a case study of remanufactured alterna-
tors. J Reman 2:1–14
Swarr TE, Hunkeler D, WKlopffer W, Pesonen H, Ciroth A, Brent AC,
Pagan R (2011) Environmental life cycle costing: a code of practice.
SETAC, Pensacola
Traverso M, Asdrubali F, Francia A, Finkbeiner M (2012a) Towards life
cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic
modules. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:1068–1079
Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Jørgensen A, Schneider L (2012b) Life cycle
sustainability dashboard. J Ind Ecol 16:680–688
Udo de Haes HA (2008) The scientific basis for SLCA. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 13:95
UNEP (2014) Why buildings. Sustainable buildings and climate change
initiative, United Nations Environment Programme. http://www.
unep.org/sbci/AboutSBCI/Background.asp. Accessed 7 Jan 2014
UNEP/SETAC (2012) Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment.
Making informed choices on products. UNEP/SETAC, Paris
Valdivia S, Ugaya CM, Hildenbrand J, Traverso M, Mazijn B,
Sonnemann G (2013) A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life
cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio + 20. Int J
Life Cycle Assess 18:1673–1685
Vinyes E, Oliver-Solà J, Ugaya C, Rieradevall J, Gasol CM (2013)
Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management. Int J
Life Cycle Assess 18:445–455
WSA (2014) Steel’s contribution to a low carbon future—world steel
position paper world steel association. Brussels, Belgium
Zamagni A (2012) Life cycle sustainability assessment. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 17:373–376
Zamagni A, Pesonen H-L, Swarr T (2013) From LCA to life cycle sus-
tainability assessment: concept, practice and future directions. Int J
Life Cycle Assess 18:1637–1641