Repository logo
 

A Comparative Study of Standardised Inputs and Inconsistent Outputs in LCA Software

Simple item page
aut.relation.endpage3174
aut.relation.issue17
aut.relation.journalBuildings
aut.relation.startpage3174
aut.relation.volume15
dc.contributor.authorGong, J
dc.contributor.authorVishnupriya, V
dc.contributor.authorWilkinson, S
dc.date.accessioned2025-09-28T23:30:55Z
dc.date.available2025-09-28T23:30:55Z
dc.date.issued2025-09-04
dc.description.abstractMotivation: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a valuable tool for quantifying environmental impacts in construction. However, inconsistencies between software outputs may compromise effective decision-making. Knowledge Gap: In New Zealand’s construction sector, practitioners have limited guidance in selecting suitable LCA tools due to gaps in software scope, data transparency, and the quality of result interpretation. Aim and Objectives: This study investigates inconsistencies in results produced by eight widely used LCA software tools and identifies the key factors contributing to these variations. Research Method: This study uses a comparative analysis with data from a timber-framed warehouse project in Auckland, New Zealand. Eight software tools (SimaPro V9.0, openLCA V2.0, LCAQuick V3.5, Building Carbon Calculator V1.0, CCaLC2 V3.1, eTool V5.0, One Click LCA, and Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings V5.4) were evaluated across 14 environmental impact categories using standardised inputs. Preliminary Findings: Substantial inconsistencies were observed even with standardised inputs, although SimaPro V9.0 and openLCA V2.0 provided the most consistent results. These findings highlight the importance of software selection for reliable environmental assessments. Research Significance: This study aids industry practitioners in selecting effective LCA tools for sustainable construction practices.
dc.identifier.citationBuildings, ISSN: 2075-5309 (Print); 2075-5309 (Online), MDPI AG, 15(17), 3174-3174. doi: 10.3390/buildings15173174
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/buildings15173174
dc.identifier.issn2075-5309
dc.identifier.issn2075-5309
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10292/19871
dc.languageen
dc.publisherMDPI AG
dc.relation.urihttps://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/15/17/3174
dc.rights© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
dc.rights.accessrightsOpenAccess
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject4005 Civil Engineering
dc.subject40 Engineering
dc.subject33 Built Environment and Design
dc.subject3302 Building
dc.subject1201 Architecture
dc.subject1202 Building
dc.subject1203 Design Practice and Management
dc.subject3301 Architecture
dc.subject3302 Building
dc.subject4005 Civil engineering
dc.titleA Comparative Study of Standardised Inputs and Inconsistent Outputs in LCA Software
dc.typeJournal Article
pubs.elements-id630416

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Gong et al_2025_A comparative study of standardised outputs.pdf
Size:
3.29 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Journal article
Download

Collections

School of Future Environments - Huri te Ao