Design Strategies to Lead Thailand’s Building Sector toward Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Review
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The building sector is one of the intensive greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters in Thailand. Furthermore, Thailand also aims to reach net-zero GHG emissions by 2065. This study therefore aims to evaluate whether the current design strategies are adequate to lead the building sector to net-zero emissions. The study initially finds that the embodied and operational phases have equal chances of becoming hotspot of buildings as the emissions from each phase can be influenced by choice of material, choice of energy-saving retrofits, and electricity grid profiles. Since either phase could become the hotspot of buildings, this study reviews two international and national green-building guidelines each to identify the design strategies used for buildings’ GHG mitigation. The review highlights five main strategies: to substitute low-carbon materials for carbon-intensive materials, to improve structural performances of carbon-intensive materials, to increase the circularity of buildings; as well as, to use passive and active energy-saving retrofits. Afterward, the efficiencies and limitations of the aforesaid strategies are assessed through 46 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies and relevant documents such as reports by Thailand’s government, building code, etc. The assessment indicates that, in theory, the aforesaid strategies show great potential on leading Thailand’s building sector to net-zero GHG emissions, given a condition that all buildings use renewable energy-based on-site electricity generators on a large scale. However, in reality, there are various limitations preventing this ideal situation to arise. Thus, this study posts five possible research improvements and a hands-on management strategy as a means to provide practical benefits and push forward Thailand's building sector toward the net-zero GHG emissions goal ultimately.
Article Details
References
Energy Policy and Planning Office. 2021. Energy Statistic of Thailand 2021. Thailand’s Ministry of Energy.
Iqbal, M. I., Himmler, R., & Gheewala, S. H. 2017. Potential life cycle energy savings through a transition from typical to energy plus households: A case study from Thailand. Energy and Buildings, 134: 295-305.
EPPO, Thailand’s Energy Policy and Planning Office. 2015. Energy Efficiency Plan; EEP 2015. Thailand’s Ministry of Energy.
DEDE, Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency. 2018. Energy Efficiency Plan 2018 - 2037. Thailand’s Ministry of Energy.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. 2020. Thailand Third Biennial Update Report. United Nation Climate Change.
UNGCNT, United Nation Global Compact Network Thailand. 2021. Thailand’s Long-term Greenhouse Gas Emission Development Strategy, presented at COP26, Thailand Pavilion.
EN 15978:2011. 2011. Sustainability of Construction Works. Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings- Calculation method.
ISO 21931-1:2010. 2010. Sustainability in Building Construction—Framework for Methods of Assessment of the Environmental Performance of Construction Works - Part 1: Buildings, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
Thailand’s Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning. 2019. Master Key Plan for Climate Change between 2015 and 2050.
Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation. 2020. Strategies to drive forward Thailand by Bio-Circular-Green Economic Model (BCG) 2021 - 2027.
U.S. Green Building Council. 2021. LEED v4.1 Building Design and Construction. [Accessed March, 2022]. Available from: https://www.usgbc.org/leed/v41#bdc
European Commission. 2020. Circular economy principle for building design. [Accessed March, 2022]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/designing-buildings-context-circular-economy_en
Thai Green Building Institute. 2017. TREES for new construction and major renovation. [Accessed March, 2022]. Available from: https://www.tgbi.or.th/uploads/trees/2017_03_TREES-NC-Eng.pdf
DEDE, Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency. 2017. Building Energy Code by Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency.
American Concrete Institute. 2002. Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete (ACI 211.1-91). [Accessed March, 2022]. Available from: https://kashanu.ac.ir/Files/aci%20211_1_91.pdf
Piyapanphong, S. 2018. Country Report (Kingdom of Thailand). Eighth Regional 3R Forum in Asia and the Pacific “Achieving Clean Water, Clean Land and Clean Air through 3R and Resource Efficiency- A 21st Century Vision for Asia-pacific Communities,” India. [Accessed March, 2022]. Available from: https://uncrd.or.jp/content/documents/5857Thailand_Country%20Report.pdf
EPPO, Thailand’s Energy Policy and Planning Office. 2018. Power Development Plan (PDP).
Rajbhandari, S., & Limmeechokchai, B. 2020. Assessment of greenhouse gas mitigation pathways for Thailand towards achievement of the 2°C and 1.5°C Paris Agreement targets. Climate Policy, 21(4): 492-513.
Hasik, V., Ororbia, M., Warn, G. P., & Bilec, M. M. 2019. Whole building life cycle environmental impacts and costs: A sensitivity study of design and service decisions. Building and Environment, 163: 106316.
Ghose, A., McLaren, S. J., Dowdell, D., & Phipps, R. 2017. Environmental assessment of deep energy refurbishment for energy efficiency-case study of an office building in New Zealand. Building and Environment, 117: 274-287.
Norouzi, M., Colclough, S., Jiménez, L., Gavaldà, J., & Boer, D. 2022. Low-energy buildings in combination with grid decarbonization, life cycle assessment of passive house buildings in Northern Ireland. Energy and Buildings, 261: 111936.
Liu, S., Schulz, U. W., Sapar, M. H., & Qian, S. 2016. Evaluation of the environmental performance of the chilled ceiling system using life cycle assessment (LCA): A case study in Singapore. Building and Environment, 102: 207-216.
González-Prieto, D., Fernández-Nava, Y., Marañón, E., & Prieto, M. M. 2021. Environmental life cycle assessment based on the retrofitting of a twentieth-century heritage building in Spain, with electricity decarbonization scenarios. Building Research & Information, 49(8): 859-877.
Raugei, M., Keena, N., Novelli, N., Aly Etman, M., & Dyson, A. 2021. Life cycle assessment of an ecological living module equipped with conventional rooftop or integrated concentrating photovoltaics. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 25(5): 1207-1221.
Burek, J., & Nutter, D. 2018. Life cycle assessment of grocery, perishable, and general merchandise multi-facility distribution center networks. Energy and Buildings, 174: 388-401.
Nematchoua, M. K., Asadi, S., Obonyo, E., & Reiter, S. 2021. Environmental analysis of health damages coming from a residential neighborhood built in 150 countries. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment.
Chastas, P., Theodosiou, T., Kontoleon, K. J., & Bikas, D. 2018. Normalising and assessing carbon emissions in the building sector: A review on the embodied CO2 emissions of residential buildings. Building and Environment, 130: 212-226.
Kiss, B., & Szalay, Z. 2022. Sensitivity of buildings’ carbon footprint to electricity decarbonization: a life cycle–based multi-objective optimization approach. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.
de Oliveira Fernandes, M. A., Keijzer, E., van Leeuwen, S., Kuindersma, P., Melo, L., Hinkema, M., & Gonçalves Gutierrez, K. 2021. Material-versus energy-related impacts: Analysing environmental trade-offs in building retrofit scenarios in the Netherlands. Energy and Buildings, 231: 110650.
Lausselet, C., Ellingsen, L. A., Strømman, A. H., & Brattebø, H. 2019. A life‐cycle assessment model for zero emission neighborhoods. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 24(3): 500-516.
Ramírez-Villegas, R., Eriksson, O., & Olofsson, T. 2019. Environmental Payback of Renovation Strategies in a Northern Climate—the Impact of Nuclear Power and Fossil Fuels in the Electricity Supply. Energies, 13(1): 80.
Zeitz, A., Griffin, C., & Dusicka, P. 2019. Comparing the embodied carbon and energy of a mass timber structure system to typical steel and concrete alternatives for parking garages. Energy and Buildings, 199: 126-133.
Moncaster, A., Pomponi, F., Symons, K., & Guthrie, P. 2018. Why method matters: Temporal, spatial and physical variations in LCA and their impact on choice of structural system. Energy and Buildings, 173: 389-398.
Lu, H. R., el Hanandeh, A., & Gilbert, B. P. 2017. A comparative life cycle study of alternative materials for Australian multi-storey apartment building frame constructions: Environmental and economic perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166: 458-473.
Himes, A., & Busby, G. 2020. Wood buildings as a climate solution. Developments in the Built Environment, 4: 100030.
Hart, J., D’Amico, B., & Pomponi, F. 2021. Whole‐life embodied carbon in multistory buildings: Steel, concrete and timber structures. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 25(2): 403-418.
Tavares, V., Lacerda, N., & Freire, F. 2019. Embodied energy and greenhouse gas emissions analysis of a prefabricated modular house: The “Moby” case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212: 1044-1053.
Pierobon, F., Huang, M., Simonen, K., & Ganguly, I. 2019. Environmental benefits of using hybrid CLT structure in midrise non-residential construction: An LCA based comparative case study in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Journal of Building Engineering, 26: 100862.
Escamilla, E. Z., Habert, G., Daza, J. C., Archilla, H., Fernández, J. C., & Trujillo, D. 2018. Industrial or Traditional Bamboo Construction? Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Bamboo-Based Buildings. Sustainability, 10(9): 3096.
Yang, X., Zhang, S., & Wang, K. 2021. Quantitative study of life cycle carbon emissions from 7 timber buildings in China. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26(9): 1721-1734.
Bukoski, J. J., Chaiwiwatworakul, P., & Gheewala, S. H. 2016. The Life Cycle Assessment of an Energy-Positive Peri-Urban Residence in a Tropical Regime. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(5): 1115-1127.
Hahnel, G., Whyte, A., & Biswas, W. K. 2021. A comparative life cycle assessment of structural flooring systems in Western Australia. Journal of Building Engineering, 35: 102109.
Zhang, X., Xu, J., Zhang, X., & Li, Y. 2021. Life cycle carbon emission reduction potential of a new steel-bamboo composite frame structure for residential houses. Journal of Building Engineering, 39: 102295.
Balasbaneh, A. T., & bin Marsono, A. K. 2017. Strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from residential sector by proposing new building structures in hot and humid climatic conditions. Building and Environment, 124: 357-368.
Zhang, X., & Wang, F. 2015. Life-cycle assessment and control measures for carbon emissions of typical buildings in China. Building and Environment, 86: 89-97.
Samani, P., Mendes, A., Leal, V., Guedes, J. M., & Correia, N. 2015. A sustainability assessment of advanced materials for novel housing solutions. Building and Environment, 92: 182-191.
Dong, Y., Ng, S. T., & Liu, P. 2021. A comprehensive analysis towards benchmarking of life cycle assessment of buildings based on systematic review. Building and Environment, 204: 108162.
Zhao, J., Tong, L., Li, B., Chen, T., Wang, C., Yang, G., & Zheng, Y. 2021. Eco-friendly geopolymer materials: A review of performance improvement, potential application and sustainability assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 307: 127085.
Xiao, R., Ma, Y., Jiang, X., Zhang, M., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., et. al. 2020. Strength, microstructure, efflorescence behavior and environmental impacts of waste glass geopolymers cured at ambient temperature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252; 119610.
Dollente, I. J. R., Tan, R. R., Promentilla, M. A. B. 2021. Life Cycle Assessment of Precast Geopolymer Products. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 88: 799-804.
Lovecchio, N., Shaikh, F., Rosano, M., Ceravolo, R., & Biswas, W. 2020. Environmental assessment of supplementary cementitious materials and engineered nanomaterials concrete. AIMS Environmental Science, 7(1): 13-30.
Nath, P., Sarker, P. K., & Biswas, W. K. 2018. Effect of fly ash on the service life, carbon footprint and embodied energy of high strength concrete in the marine environment. Energy and Buildings, 158: 1694-1702.
Valencia-Barba, Y. E., Gómez-Soberón, J. M., Gómez-Soberón, M. C., & López-Gayarre, F. 2020. An Epitome of Building Floor Systems by Means of LCA Criteria. Sustainability, 12(13): 5442.
Paik, I., & Na, S. 2019. Evaluation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions amongst Alternative Slab Systems during the Construction Phase in a Building Project. Applied Sciences, 9(20): 4333.
Na, & Paik. 2019. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Costs with the Alternative Structural System for Slab: A Comparative Analysis of South Korea Cases. Sustainability, 11(19): 5238.
Garcez, M. R., Rohden, A. B., & Graupner De Godoy, L. G. 2018. The role of concrete compressive strength on the service life and life cycle of a RC structure: Case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172: 27-38.
Stoiber, N., Hammerl, M., & Kromoser, B. 2021. Cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of CFRP reinforcement for concrete structures: Calculation basis and exemplary application. Journal of Cleaner Production, 280: 124300.
Teng, Y., & Pan, W. 2019. Systematic embodied carbon assessment and reduction of prefabricated high-rise public residential buildings in Hong Kong. Journal of Cleaner Production, 238: 117791.
Mavrokapnidis, D., Mitropoulou, C. C., & Lagaros, N. D. 2019. Environmental assessment of cost optimized structural systems in tall buildings. Journal of Building Engineering, 24: 100730.
Eleftheriadis, S., Duffour, P., & Mumovic, D. 2018. BIM-embedded life cycle carbon assessment of RC buildings using optimised structural design alternatives. Energy and Buildings, 173: 587-600.
Dong, Y. H., & Ng, S. T. 2015. A life cycle assessment model for evaluating the environmental impacts of building construction in Hong Kong. Building and Environment, 89: 183-191.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2015. Circularity Indicators An approach to measuring circularity. [Accessed March, 2022]. Available from: https://emf.thirdlight.com/link/3jtevhlkbukz-9of4s4/@/preview/1?o
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.
Eberhardt, L. C. M., Birgisdóttir, H., & Birkved, M. 2018. Life cycle assessment of a Danish office building designed for disassembly. Building Research & Information, 47(6): 666-680.
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.
Arrigoni, A., Zucchinelli, M., Collatina, D., & Dotelli, G. 2018. Life cycle environmental benefits of a forward-thinking design phase for buildings: the case study of a temporary pavilion built for an international exhibition. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187: 974-983.
Vitale, P., Spagnuolo, A., Lubritto, C., & Arena, U. 2018. Environmental performances of residential buildings with a structure in cold formed steel or reinforced concrete. Journal of Cleaner Production, 189: 839-852.
Tulevech, S. M., Hage, D. J., Jorgensen, S. K., Guensler, C. L., Himmler, R., & Gheewala, S. H. 2018. Life cycle assessment: a multi-scenario case study of a low-energy industrial building in Thailand. Energy and Buildings, 168: 191-200.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2020. Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM).
Rabani, M., Madessa, H. B., Ljungström, M., Aamodt, L., Løvvold, S., & Nord, N. 2021. Life cycle analysis of GHG emissions from the building retrofitting: The case of a Norwegian office building. Building and Environment, 204: 108159.
Vavanou, A., Schwartz, Y., & Mumovic, D. 2021. The life cycle impact of refurbishment packages on residential buildings with different initial thermal conditions. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment.
Hu, M. 2019. Life-cycle environmental assessment of energy-retrofit strategies on a campus scale. Building Research & Information, 48(6): 659-680.
Mateus, R., Silva, S. M., & de Almeida, M. G. 2019. Environmental and cost life cycle analysis of the impact of using solar systems in energy renovation of Southern European single-family buildings. Renewable Energy, 137: 82-92.
Ramírez-Villegas, R., Eriksson, O., & Olofsson, T. 2019. Life Cycle Assessment of Building Renovation Measures–Trade-off between Building Materials and Energy. Energies, 12(3): 344.
Mangan, S. D., & Oral, G. K. 2016. Assessment of residential building performances for the different climate zones of Turkey in terms of life cycle energy and cost efficiency. Energy and Buildings, 110: 362-376.
Iqbal, M. I., Himmler, R., & Gheewala, S. H. 2018. Environmental impacts reduction potential through a PV based transition from typical to energy plus houses in Thailand: A life cycle perspective. Sustainable Cities and Society, 37: 307-322.
Cubi, E., Zibin, N. F., Thompson, S. J., & Bergerson, J. 2015. Sustainability of Rooftop Technologies in Cold Climates: Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of White Roofs, Green Roofs, and Photovoltaic Panels. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(2): 249-262.
Lawania, K. K., & Biswas, W. K. 2016. Cost-effective GHG mitigation strategies for Western Australia’s housing sector: a life cycle management approach. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 18(8): 2419-2428.
Pombo, O., Allacker, K., Rivela, B., & Neila, J. 2016. Sustainability assessment of energy saving measures: A multi-criteria approach for residential buildings retrofitting—A case study of the Spanish housing stock. Energy and Buildings, 116: 384-394.
Saadé, M., Erradhouani, B., Pawlak, S., Appendino, F., Peuportier, B., & Roux, C. 2022. Combining circular and LCA indicators for the early design of urban projects. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 27(1): 1-19.