Multi-criteria assessment of bio-based construction on circularity, environmental impact and feasibility

Abstract

Over the past decade, the construction industry has increasingly prioritized climate neutrality. In line with this, the EU Green Deal and its ‘Fit-for-55’ legislative package aim to reduce total emissions by 55% by 2030. A major challenge in achieving this goal is addressing the embodied carbon of building materials, which arises from production, transportation, and end-of-life stages. Reaching such targets requires a fundamental shift from the current linear construction model toward a circular and low-carbon approach. This study aims to explore the potential of bio-based building materials as feasible low-carbon alternatives and evaluates their circularity, environmental impact and feasibility by using established assessment frameworks. The research is focused on hemp-based building materials that are applicable in Turkish context. First, circular strategies including the 9Rs (refuse, reduce, reuse, etc.) and adaptation of existing tools such as Circular Built, together with emerging bio-based construction materials are reviewed. Then, a multi-criteria evaluation framework is developed to assess bio-based materials and applied on hemp-based materials. The results include a comparison between conventional and bio-based materials at component and building-level by utilizing a representation office building in Türkiye. In the end, the findings display 50% environmental impact reduction for the façade materials.

Keywords

• Bio-based building materials
• circularity assessment
• environmental impact
• multi-criteria assessment

Supporting Institution

No financial support has been received for conducting the research and/or for the preparation of the article.

Ethical Statement

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards.

Thanks

The author would like to thank Dilara Başçıl and Ece Aktaş for their support.

Organik tabanlı inşaat için döngüsellik, çevresel etki ve fizibilitesi üzerine çok kriterli değerlendirme

Abstract

Son on yılda inşaat sektörü, iklim nötrlüğüne giderek daha fazla odaklanmıştır. Bu doğrultuda, AB Yeşil Mutabakatı ve “Fit-for-55” mevzuat paketi, 2030 yılına kadar toplam emisyonların %55 oranında azaltılmasını hedeflemektedir. En büyük zorluklardan biri, yapı malzemelerinin üretim, taşıma ve yaşam sonundaki süreçlerinden kaynaklanan gömülü karbon emisyonlarının azaltılmasıdır. Bu tür hedeflere ulaşmak, mevcut doğrusal inşaat modelinden döngüsel ve düşük karbonlu bir yaklaşıma geçilmesini gerektirmektedir. Bu çalışma, organik yapı malzemelerinin döngüsellik potansiyelini mevcut değerlendirme çerçeveleri aracılığıyla analiz ederek düşük karbonlu alternatifler olarak uygulanabilirliğini keşfetmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, Türkiye’de kullanılabilen kenevir tabanlı malzemelere odaklanmaktadır. Çalışmada önce, 9R döngüsellik stratejileri üzerine kısa bir literatür taraması, Circular Built gibi araçların uyarlanması ve yeni organik yapı malzemeleri sunulmaktadır. Sonra, çevresel etki, döngüsellik ve uygulanabilirlik kriterlerine göre çok kriterli bir değerlendirme tablosu geliştirilmiştir ve kenevir tabanlı malzemelere uygulanmıştır. Sonuçlar, Türkiye’deki temsili ofis binası kullanarak bileşen ve bina düzeyinde geleneksel ve organik yapı malzemeler arasında bir karşılaştırmayı içerir. Bulgular, cephe malzemeleri için %50 oranında bir çevresel etki azaltımı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Organik yapı malzemeleri
• döngüsellik değerlendirmesi
• çevresel etki
• çok kriterli değerlendirme

Supporting Institution

Bu araştırmanın yürütülmesi ve/veya makalenin hazırlanması için herhangi bir mali destek alınmamıştır.

Ethical Statement

Araştırma etik standartlara uygun olarak yapılmıştır.

Thanks

Yazar Dilara Başçıl ve Ece Aktaş’a destekleri için teşekkür etmektedir.

References

1. Akman, A., Pedergrana, M., Titiz Akman, M., & Nazan Yücel, N. (2024). Afetlere Dirençli Kentler için Doğal Yapı Malzemeleri ve Yöntemleri. https://wwftr.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/do-al-yap--malzemeleri-ve-yontemleri-02-06-2024_1.pdf
2. Ankara Ticaret Odası. (2019). Kenevir üretim raporu [Hemp production report]. https://www.ankaratb.org.tr/lib_upload/Kenevir%20Ueretimi%20Degerlendirmesi%20ve%20Raporu%202019.pdf
3. Avlar, E., & Korkmaz, E. (2011). Evaluating of the Principles in the Regulations for Construction of Timber Structures in Türkiye. SHATIS'11 International Conference on Structural Health Assessment of Timber Structures.
4. Birinci, A. U., İlhan, O., Demir, A., & Demirkır, C. (2024). Yapay Sinir Ağları (YSA) Kullanılarak CLT Perde Duvarların Yanal Yük Altındaki Rijitliklerinin Kereste Direnç Sınıflarına Göre Tahmin Edilmesi. Düzce Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Ormancılık Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.58816/duzceod.1443083
5. Birinci, A. U., Öztürk, H., Demirkır, C., & Çolakoğlu, G. (2020). Structural Performance Analysis of Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) Produced From Pine and Spruce Grown in Turkey. Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences, 5(5), 819–824. https://doi.org/10.35229/jaes.834313
6. Bowyer, J. L., & Kacprzak, Alicja. (2023). Circularity concepts in wood construction. United Nations.
7. Carcassi, O. B., Habert, G., Malighetti, L. E., & Pittau, F. (2022). Material Diets for Climate-Neutral Construction. Environmental Science & Technology, 56(8), 5213–5223. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c05895
8. Carus, M., & Bertucelli, S. (2016). The european hemp industry: Cultivation, processing and applications for fibres, shives and seeds. www.eiha.org

9. Cascione, V., Roberts, M., Allen, S., Dams, B., Maskell, D., Shea, A., Walker, P., & Emmitt, S. (2022). Integration of life cycle assessments (LCA) in circular bio-based wall panel design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 344, 130938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130938
10. CBCI. (2020a). CircularBuilt. The Circular Built Tool. https://circularbuilt.be/
11. CBCI. (2020b). Interreg 2seas Circular Biobased Construction Industry. The European Union Regional Development Fund Interreg 2 Seas Mers Zeeen (2S05-036). https://www.interreg2seas.eu/nl/CBCI
12. Ceyhan, V., Türkten, H., Yıldırım, Ç., & Canan, S. (2022). Economic viability of industrial hemp production in Turkey. Industrial Crops and Products, 176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.114354
13. Cortés, J. G., Ryu, B. R., Pauli, C., Barroso, L. R., & Park, S. H. (2024). Industrial Applications of Hemp Fiber in Europe and Evolving Regulatory Landscape. Journal of Natural Fibers, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2024.2435047
14. Di Capua, S. E., Paolotti, L., Moretti, E., Rocchi, L., & Boggia, A. (2021). Evaluation of the Environmental Sustainability of Hemp as a Building Material, through Life Cycle Assessment. Environmental and Climate Technologies, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2021-0092
15. Diker, B., & Yazıcıoğlu, F. (2020). A research on straw bale and traditional external wall systems: Energy and cost-efficiency analysis. A/Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.5505/itujfa.2019.65882
16. Dodd, N., & Donatello, S. (2021). Level(s)-A common EU framework of core sustainability indicators for office and residential buildings User Manual 1: Introduction to the Level(s) common framework (Publication version 1.1). https://ec.europa.eu/jrc
17. Dormohamadi, M., Rahimnia, R., & Bunster, V. (2024). Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis of different walling materials with an environmental approach (comparison between earth-based vs. conventional construction techniques in Iran). International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 29(3), 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02259-6
18. Duque Schumacher, A. G., Pequito, S., & Pazour, J. (2020). Industrial hemp fiber: A sustainable and economical alternative to cotton. Journal of Cleaner Production, 268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122180
19. EC. (2019). Communication (EU) 2019/640 from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - The European Green Deal. In 2019.
20. EC. (2020a). Communication (EU) 2020/98 from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - A new Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe.
21. EC. (2020b). Communication (EU) 2020/662 from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Renovation Wave for Europe - greening our buildings, creating jobs, improving lives.
22. EC. (2024). Hemp production in the EU. Crop Productions and Plant-Based Products. https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/farming/crop-productions-and-plant-based-products/
23. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2015). Growth Within: A Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe.
24. Esin, T., & Yüksek, I. (2008). A study on ecological properties of building materials used in traditional buildings (in Turkey). Facilities, 26(5–6). https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770810865005
25. EU. (2023). Regulation (EU) 2023/956 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism.
26. Goddin, J., Marshall, K., Pereira, A., Design, G., Herrmann, S., Ds, S., Sam, J., Dupont, T., Krieger, C., Lenges, E., Ben, C., Pierce, J., Susan, E., Gispen, I.-J., Veenendaal, R., Per, I., Natureworks, S., Ford, L., Goodman, T., … Cockburn, D. (2019). Circularity Indicators - An Approach to Measure Circularity - Methodology. http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circularity-indicators/.
27. Göswein, V., Reichmann, J., Habert, G., & Pittau, F. (2021). Land availability in Europe for a radical shift toward bio-based construction. Sustainable Cities and Society, 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102929
28. Kayaçetin, N. C., & Hozatlı, B. (2024). Whole life carbon assessment of representative building typologies for nearly zero energy building definitions. Journal of Building Engineering, 95, 110214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.110214
29. Kayaçetin, N. C., Verdoodt, S., Lefevre, L., & Versele, A. (2022). Evaluation of Circular Construction Works During Design Phase: An Overview of Valuation Tools. In J. R. Littlewood (Ed.), Sustainability in Energy and Buildings 2021 (Vol. 263, pp. 89–100). Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6269-0_47
30. Kayaçetin, N. C., Verdoodt, S., Lefevre, L., & Versele, A. (2023). Integrated decision support for embodied impact assessment of circular and bio-based building components. Journal of Building Engineering, 63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105427
31. Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations. Ecological Economics, 143, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041
32. Le, D. L., Salomone, R., & Nguyen, Q. T. (2023). Circular bio-based building materials: A literature review of case studies and sustainability assessment methods. Building and Environment, 244, 110774. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2023.110774
33. Montalbano, G., Santi, G., & Kholoud , N. (2024). RAMMED EARTH CONSTRUCTION: A CIRCULAR SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE BUILDING. Proceedings of International Structural Engineering and Construction, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.14455/isec.2024.11(1).sus-01
34. Mouton, L., Allacker, K., & Röck, M. (2023). Bio-based building material solutions for environmental benefits over conventional construction products – Life cycle assessment of regenerative design strategies (1/2). Energy and Buildings, 282, 112767. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2022.112767
35. Muhit, I. B., Omairey, E. L., & Pashakolaie, V. G. (2024). A holistic sustainability overview of hemp as building and highway construction materials. In Building and Environment (Vol. 256). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111470
36. Nowicki, Peter., Banse, Martin., Bolck, Christiaan., Bos, Harriette., & Scott, Elinor. (2008). Biobased economy : state-of-the-art assessment. LEI, The Hague.
37. Özdamar, E. G. (2021). Hemp as a Potential Material in Architecture: Is it Possible in Turkey. Iconarp International J. of Architecture and Planning, 9(1), 131–154. https://doi.org/10.15320/iconarp.2021.153
38. Pedergnana, M., & Elias-Ozkan, S. T. (2021). Impact of various sands and fibres on the physical and mechanical properties of earth mortars for plasters and renders. Construction and Building Materials, 308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125013
39. RICS. (2023). Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment (2nd ed.). Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Parliament Square . www.rics.org
40. Röck, M., Saade, M. R. M., Balouktsi, M., Rasmussen, F. N., Birgisdottir, H., Frischknecht, R., Habert, G., Lützkendorf, T., & Passer, A. (2020). Embodied GHG emissions of buildings – The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Applied Energy, 258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114107
41. Schulte, M., Lewandowski, I., Pude, R., & Wagner, M. (2021). Comparative life cycle assessment of bio-based insulation materials: Environmental and economic performances. GCB Bioenergy, 13(6). https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12825
42. Somer, M. E., & Alkhayat, O. (2024). A study on wood waste potential in Turkey. Cleaner Waste Systems, 8, 100151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clwas.2024.100151
43. T.C. Çevre Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı. (2020). Neredeyse Sıfır Enerjili Binalar (nSEB) için Rehber Kitap [Guideline for the Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (nZEB)]. Ankara, Turkiye.
44. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2024). Statistical Data Portal. Tekstilde Kullanılan Ham Bitkiler, 1990-2023. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=Tarim-111
45. UNDP. (2023). Promoting low-cost energy efficient wooden buildings in Türkiye. 2023. https://www.undp.org/turkiye/projects/promoting-low-cost-energy-efficient-wooden-buildings-turkiye
46. van der Burgh, F., & Verspeek, S. (2022). Research for Substantiation to Upscale Bio-Based Materials in the Construction Industry. 303–308. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/CTA.1.303
47. Van Vliet, M., van Grinsven, J., & Teunizen, J. (2021). Circular Buildings - Disassembly Potential Measurement Method Version 2.0.
48. Vural Gursel, I., Elbersen, B., Meesters, K. P. H., & van Leeuwen, M. (2022). Defining Circular Economy Principles for Biobased Products. Sustainability, 14(19), 12780. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912780
49. Wilson, A., Danti Renew, N., & Jutta Paulus, I. (2022). BRIEFING EU Legislation in Progress Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy efficiency (recast) Revising the Energy Efficiency Directive: Fit for 55 package.
50. Zhang, N., Han, Q., & de Vries, B. (2021). Building circularity assessment in the architecture, engineering, and construction industry: A new framework. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212466