Abstract
Refurbishing buildings helps reduce waste, and limiting the amount of embodied carbon in buildings helps minimize the damaging impacts of climate change through lower CO2 emissions. The analysis of embodied carbon is based on the concept of life cycle assessment (LCA). LCA is a systematic tool to evaluate the environmental impacts of a product, technology, or service through all stages of its life cycle. This study investigates the embodied carbon footprint of both new-build and refurbished buildings to determine the embodied carbon profile and its relationship to both embodied energy and construction cost. It recognizes that changes in the fuel mix for electricity generation play an important role in embodied carbon impacts in different countries. The empirical findings for Hong Kong suggest that mean embodied carbon for refurbished buildings is 33–39% lower than new-build projects, and the cost for refurbished buildings is 22–50% lower than new-build projects (per square meter of floor area). Embodied carbon ranges from 645–1059 kgCO2e/m2 for new-build and 294–655 kgCO2e/m2 for refurbished projects, which is in keeping with other studies outside Hong Kong. However, values of embodied carbon and cost for refurbished projects in this study have a higher coefficient of variation than their new-build counterparts. It is argued that it is preferable to estimate embodied energy and then convert to embodied carbon (rather than estimate embodied carbon directly), as carbon is both time and location specific. A very strong linear relationship is also observed between embodied energy and construction cost that can be used to predict the former, given the latter. This study provides a framework whereby comparisons can be made between new-build and refurbished projects on the basis of embodied carbon and related construction cost differentials into the future, helping to make informed decisions about which strategy to pursue.
Highlights
The social and environmental benefits of building preservation compared to new construction are generally accepted—for example: Jacobs [1] made the point that the ‘greenest’ buildings are the ones we already have
Of the 14 new-build projects, all of which were designated as high quality residential apartments, 12 were high-rise and two were low-rise
The empirical results found that the likely reductions in embodied carbon (EC) and Cost per square meter for refurbished projects compared with new-build are 33% and 22%, respectively
Summary
The social and environmental benefits of building preservation compared to new construction are generally accepted—for example: Jacobs [1] made the point that the ‘greenest’ buildings are the ones we already have These projects help to maintain continuity of a community for the benefit of future generations and can conserve buildings that might otherwise be obsolete, fall into disrepair, or be prematurely demolished [2]. These projects lessen the demand for new resources through reuse of part or all of a building’s fabric, reduce debris sent to landfill, and minimize a building’s ecological footprint through the reclamation of carbon embodied in existing materials [3]. Minimizing our use of carbon is a fundamental strategy that the majority of global nations have agreed to uphold [10]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
