Building Simplified Life Cycle CO2 Emissions Assessment Tool (B‐SCAT) to...

[Full title: Building Simplified Life Cycle CO2 Emissions Assessment Tool (B‐SCAT) to Support Low‐Carbon Building Design in South Korea]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Stage, Element, South, Less, Doi, June, Ansan, Life, Low, Long, Set, Tam, Development, Carbon, Tools, Large, Tool, Tae, Khoa, Major, Year, Architecture, Energy, Area, Case, Study, Strong, Bill, Vivian, Tel, March, End, Early, Roh, Shen]

sustainability Article Building Simplified Life Cycle CO 2 Emissions Assessment Tool (B-SCAT) to Support Low-Carbon Building Design in South Korea Seungjun Roh 1 and Sungho Tae 2, * 1 Innovative Durable Building and Infrastructure Research Center, Hanyang University, 55 Hanyangdaehak-ro, Sangnok-gu, Ansan 426-791, Korea; roh.seungjun@gmail.com 2 School of Architecture & Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, 55 Hanyangdaehak-ro, Sangnok-gu, Ansan 426-791, Korea * Correspondence: jnb 55@hanyang.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-31-400-5187 Academic Editors: Vivian W. Y. Tam, Khoa N. Le and Liyin Shen Received: 16 March 2016; Accepted: 9 June 2016; Published: 17 June 2016 Abstract: Various tools that assess life cycle CO 2 (LCCO 2 ) emissions are currently being developed throughout the international community. However, most building LCCO 2 emissions assessment tools use a bill of quantities (BOQ), which is calculated after starting a building’s construction. Thus, it is difficult to assess building LCCO 2 emissions during the early design phase, even though this capability would be highly effective in reducing LCCO 2 emissions. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop a Building Simplified LCCO 2 emissions Assessment Tool (B-SCAT) for application in the early design phase of low-carbon buildings in South Korea, in order to facilitate efficient decision-making. To that end, in the construction stage, the BOQ and building drawings were analyzed, and a database of quantities and equations describing the finished area were conducted for each building element. In the operation stage, the “Korea Energy Census Report” and the “Korea Building Energy Efficiency Rating Certification System” were analyzed, and three kinds of models to evaluate CO 2 emissions were proposed. These analyses enabled the development of the B-SCAT. A case study compared the assessment results performed using the B-SCAT against a conventional assessment model based on the actual BOQ of the evaluated building. These values closely approximated the conventional assessment results with error rates of less than 3% Keywords: B-SCAT; simplified life cycle assessment; life cycle CO 2 ; low-carbon building design 1. Introduction Since CO 2 reduction has been globally established as a paradigm of sustainable development, governments all over the world are competitively announcing midto long-term goals for the reduction of CO 2 emissions [ 1 , 2 ]. The USA has set its INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) to reduce CO 2 emissions by 26%–28% (compared with the baseline year 2005) by the year 2025. The EU has set its INDC to reduce CO 2 emissions by 40% (compared with the year 1990) by the year 2030 South Korea has set its INDC to reduce CO 2 emissions by 37% (compared with Business as Usual) by the year 2030 The building industry, which is a large-scale energy consumer accounting for more than 30% of all CO 2 emissions, poses a major obstacle in CO 2 reductions for all countries [ 3 – 7 ]. Accordingly, a realistic policy to reduce CO 2 emissions in this industry is required [ 8 – 10 ]. Techniques for assessing life cycle CO 2 (LCCO 2 ) emissions of buildings are gaining attention [ 11 – 14 ], and many countries are performing diverse studies to assess and reduce building LCCO 2 emissions befitting their respective national circumstances [ 15 – 19 ]. Moreover, tools for evaluating LCCO 2 emissions of buildings starting in the Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567; doi:10.3390/su 8060567 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Meet, Lisa, Bre, Given, Canada, Focus]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 2 of 22 early design phase are being developed to reduce these emissions [ 20 – 22 ], given that a building’s CO 2 emissions determined during the early design phase continue to affect the building for the entirety of its life cycle [ 23 , 24 ]. A number of programs to address this have already been implemented throughout the world, e.g., an impact estimator for buildings developed by the ASBI in Canada, Envest 2 developed by BRE in the UK, and LISA (LCA in Sustainable Architecture) developed in Australia [ 17 , 25 ]. South Korea has also developed diverse building CO 2 emissions assessment tools such as SUSB-LCA [ 26 ], K-LCA [ 27 ], BEGAS [ 28 ], and BEGAS 2.0 [ 29 ], in order to meet global requirements However, research reveals that previous tools have two limitations. First, most current CO 2 emissions assessment tools focus on assessing operational CO 2 emissions based on energy consumption during the operation stage [ 30 – 34 ]. Second, most of the LCCO 2 emissions assessment tools directly use the bill of quantities (BOQ) calculated after the construction of a building begins [ 35 , 36 ]. These constraints complicate assessments made during the early design phase, when LCCO 2 emissions can be efficiently reduced [ 37 , 38 ]. The purpose of this study is to develop a Building Simplified LCCO 2 emissions Assessment Tool (B-SCAT) that is applicable in the early design phase for the facilitation of efficient decision-making of low-carbon buildings in South Korea. To that end, this study consists of the following steps: (1) proposal of a simplified LCCO 2 emissions assessment model for buildings; (2) development of a B-SCAT; and (3) a case study comparing the assessment results of an evaluated building using a B-SCAT and a conventional assessment model based on the building’s actual BOQ 2. Proposal for Simplified LCCO 2 Assessment Model for Buildings The building LCCO 2 emissions represent the total CO 2 emissions in all stages from construction, operation, to end-of-life [ 39 , 40 ], as described in Equation (1): LCCO 2 “ CO 2 CS ` CO 2 OS ` CO 2 ES , (1) where LCCO 2 represents the life cycle CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) of the evaluated building; CO 2 CS represents the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) in the construction stage; CO 2 OS represents the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) in the operation stage; and CO 2 ES represents the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) in the end-of-life stage This section proposes a simplified CO 2 emissions assessment model for each stage ( i.e , construction, operation, and end-of-life) that can evaluate the CO 2 emissions of an apartment complex, office building, and mixed-use building during the early design phase. Figure 1 shows the framework for simplifying building LCCO 2 emissions assessment in this study Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 2 of 21 building’s CO 2 emissions determined during the early design phase continue to affect the building for the entirety of its life cycle [23,24] A number of programs to address this have already been implemented throughout the world, e.g., an impact estimator for buildings developed by the ASBI in Canada, Envest 2 developed by BRE in the UK, and LISA (LCA in Sustainable Architecture) developed in Australia [17,25] South Korea has also developed diverse building CO 2 emissions assessment tools such as SUSB ‐ LCA [26], K ‐ LCA [27], BEGAS [28], and BEGAS 2.0 [29], in order to meet global requirements However, research reveals that previous tools have two limitations First, most current CO 2 emissions assessment tools focus on assessing operational CO 2 emissions based on energy consumption during the operation stage [30–34] Second, most of the LCCO 2 emissions assessment tools directly use the bill of quantities (BOQ) calculated after the construction of a building begins [35,36] These constraints complicate assessments made during the early design phase, when LCCO 2 emissions can be efficiently reduced [37,38] The purpose of this study is to develop a Building Simplified LCCO 2 emissions Assessment Tool (B ‐ SCAT) that is applicable in the early design phase for the facilitation of efficient decision ‐ making of low ‐ carbon buildings in South Korea To that end, this study consists of the following steps: (1) proposal of a simplified LCCO 2 emissions assessment model for buildings; (2) development of a B ‐ SCAT; and (3) a case study comparing the assessment results of an evaluated building using a B ‐ SCAT and a conventional assessment model based on the building’s actual BOQ 2. Proposal for Simplified LCCO 2 Assessment Model for Buildings The building LCCO 2 emissions represent the total CO 2 emissions in all stages from construction, operation, to end ‐ of ‐ life [39,40], as described in Equation (1): LCCO CO CO CO , (1) where LCCO 2 represents the life cycle CO 2 emissions (kg ‐ CO 2 ) of the evaluated building; CO 2 CS represents the CO 2 emissions (kg ‐ CO 2 ) in the construction stage; CO 2 OS represents the CO 2 emissions (kg ‐ CO 2 ) in the operation stage; and CO 2 ES represents the CO 2 emissions (kg ‐ CO 2 ) in the end ‐ of ‐ life stage This section proposes a simplified CO 2 emissions assessment model for each stage ( i.e. , construction, operation, and end ‐ of ‐ life) that can evaluate the CO 2 emissions of an apartment complex, office building, and mixed ‐ use building during the early design phase Figure 1 shows the framework for simplifying building LCCO 2 emissions assessment in this study Figure 1. Framework of the simplification of building LCCO 2 emissions assessment Figure 1. Framework of the simplification of building LCCO 2 emissions assessment.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Hall, Wall, Lot, Roof]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 3 of 22 2.1. Construction Stage Construction stage can be subdivided into the material production process and construction process, as represented in Equation (2): CO 2 CS “ CO 2 PP ` CO 2 CP , (2) where CO 2 CS is the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) in the construction stage; CO 2 PP is the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) of the manufacturing of building materials; and CO 2 CP is the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) of construction process 2.1.1. Material Production Process In the material production process, CO 2 emitted during the manufacturing of building materials generally producing 30% of building LCCO 2 emissions [ 29 ] are evaluated. The CO 2 emissions of this process include those released during the production of structural materials and finishing materials, as represented in Equation (3): CO 2 PP “ CO 2 SM ` CO 2 FM , (3) where CO 2 PP is the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) in the material production process, mostly produced by building materials; CO 2 SM is the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) of structural materials; and CO 2 FM is the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) of finishing materials This study categorized the assessment criteria for building elements, which are included in the structural materials and finishing materials, as shown in Figure 2 , to assess the CO 2 emissions of the material production process while considering the function of the building. In other words, the apartment complex was subdivided into a residential building, annexed building, and underground parking lot; while the office building was subdivided into an office building, annexed building, and underground parking lot. Finally, the mixed-use building was divided into a residential building, office building, annexed building, and underground parking lot. In addition, the interior and exterior finishing materials were analyzed according to the finish schedule, and building elements were divided into the following categories: wall, wall opening, roof, exclusive space, elevator hall, and staircase Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 3 of 21 2.1. Construction Stage Construction stage can be subdivided into the material production process and construction process, as represented in Equation (2): CO CO CO , (2) where CO 2 CS is the CO 2 emissions (kg ‐ CO 2 ) in the construction stage; CO 2 PP is the CO 2 emissions (kg ‐ CO 2 ) of the manufacturing of building materials; and CO 2 CP is the CO 2 emissions (kg ‐ CO 2 ) of construction process 2.1.1 Material Production Process In the material production process, CO 2 emitted during the manufacturing of building materials generally producing 30% of building LCCO 2 emissions [29] are evaluated The CO 2 emissions of this process include those released during the production of structural materials and finishing materials, as represented in Equation (3): CO CO CO , (3) where CO 2 PP is the CO 2 emissions (kg ‐ CO 2 ) in the material production process, mostly produced by building materials; CO 2 SM is the CO 2 emissions (kg ‐ CO 2 ) of structural materials; and CO 2 FM is the CO 2 emissions (kg ‐ CO 2 ) of finishing materials This study categorized the assessment criteria for building elements, which are included in the structural materials and finishing materials, as shown in Figure 2, to assess the CO 2 emissions of the material production process while considering the function of the building In other words, the apartment complex was subdivided into a residential building, annexed building, and underground parking lot; while the office building was subdivided into an office building, annexed building, and underground parking lot Finally, the mixed ‐ use building was divided into a residential building, office building, annexed building, and underground parking lot In addition, the interior and exterior finishing materials were analyzed according to the finish schedule, and building elements were divided into the following categories: wall, wall opening, roof, exclusive space, elevator hall, and staircase Figure 2. Assessment criteria of building elements Figure 2. Assessment criteria of building elements.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Steel, Floor, Ready, Plane, Frame, Tower, High, Mpa, Table, Src, Factor, Rebar]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 4 of 22 (1) Structural Materials To calculate the CO 2 emissions of structural materials, such as ready-mixed concrete, rebar, and steel frames, the supply quantities of these materials were determined after analyzing 60 types of BOQ and construction details of recently constructed buildings. Table 1 lists the average supply quantities of structural materials per unit area by building section Table 1. Average supply quantities of structural materials per unit area Building Section Structure Type Structure Form Plane Type Structural Material Ready-Mixed Concrete (m 3 /m 2 ) Rebar (kg/m 2 ) Steel Frame (kg/m 2 ) Residential building RC 1 Wall Flat-type 0.66 60.00 - Tower-type 0.59 62.20 - Mixed-type 0.63 61.10 - Column Flat-type 0.65 63.52 - Tower-type 0.57 75.56 - Mixed-type 0.61 69.54 - Flat slab Flat-type 0.62 82.34 - Tower-type 0.56 77.50 - Mixed-type 0.58 79.92 - SRC 2 Column Flat-type 0.35 37.67 74.98 Tower-type 0.32 29.01 74.98 Mixed-type 0.33 33.34 74.98 Office building SRC Wall - 0.46 63.00 59.07 Curtain wall - 0.30 41.58 59.07 Annexed building RC Wall - 0.74 87.00 - Underground parking lot RC Column - 1.46 157.00 - 1 RC: Reinforced concrete; 2 SRC: Steel framed reinforced concrete For each assessment item, the supply quantities of structural materials can be determined from the floor area, number of stories, and supply quantities coefficient, as described in Equations (4)–(6). In the ready-mixed concrete (refer to Equation (4)), the modification factor was applied in order to consider the decrease in supply quantity of the vertical members according to use of high-strength concrete [ 41 ]. Table 2 lists the modification factor of the supply quantity for high-strength concrete Table 2. Modification factors of the ready-mixed concrete Strength (MPa) Reduction Ratio (%) Modification Factor 21 - 1.000 24 - 1.000 27 4.77 0.952 30 9.70 0.903 35 16.84 0.852 40 22.61 0.774 50 30.08 0.699 60 32.11 0.679 The CO 2 emissions of the structure materials were then assessed using Equation (7) as follows: SQ RMC i “ FA STD i ˆ NS i ˆ QC RMC i ˆ α , (4)

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Standard, Zone, Ash, Fly]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 5 of 22 SQ RB i “ FA STD i ˆ NS i ˆ QC RB i , (5) SQ SF i “ FA STD i ˆ NS i ˆ QC SF i , (6) and CO 2 SM “ ÿ i p SQ RMC i ˆ CF RMC j q ` ÿ i p SQ RB i ˆ CF RB j q ` ÿ i p SQ SF i ˆ CF SF j q , (7) where SQ i RMC is the supply quantity (m 3 ) of ready-mixed concrete in vertical zone i; FA i STD is the floor area (m 2 ) of a standard floor in vertical zone i ; and NS i is the number of stories in vertical zone i Furthermore, QC i RMC is the supply quantity coefficient (m 3 /m 2 ) of ready-mixed concrete in vertical zone i (refer to Table 1 ); α is the modification factor of the ready-mixed concrete (refer to Table 2 ); SQ i RB is the supply quantity (kg) of rebar in vertical zone i; QC i RB is the supply quantity coefficient (kg/m 2 ) of rebar in vertical zone i (refer to Table 1 ); SQ i SF is the supply quantity (kg) of steel frame in vertical zone i; QC i SF is the supply quantity coefficient (kg/m 2 ) of steel frame in vertical zone i (refer to Table 1 ); CO 2 SM is the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) of structure materials; CF i RMC is the CO 2 emissions factor (kg-CO 2 /m 3 ) of ready-mixed concrete j (refer to Table 3 ); CF j RB is the CO 2 emissions factor (kg-CO 2 /kg) of rebar j; and CF j SF is the CO 2 emissions factor (kg-CO 2 /kg) of steel frame j Table 3. CO 2 emissions factors of concrete Strength (MPa) Admixture Material Mixture Composition (%) CO 2 Emissions Factor (kg-CO 2 /m 3 ) Blast Furnace Slag Fly-Ash 21 - - - 346.0 Blast furnace slag 10 0 328.5 20 0 297.2 30 0 266.0 40 0 230.7 Fly-ash 0 10 328.3 0 20 296.8 0 30 265.3 0 40 229.8 Blast furnace slag + Fly-ash 10 10 297.0 10 20 265.5 10 30 234.0 20 10 265.7 20 20 234.2 30 10 234.5 27 - - - 364.0 Blast furnace slag 10 0 329.7 20 0 294.1 30 0 258.5 40 0 226.7 Fly-ash 0 10 329.4 0 20 293.6 0 30 257.8 0 40 225.6 Blast furnace slag + Fly-ash 10 10 293.9 10 20 258.0 10 30 222.2 20 10 258.3 20 20 222.5 30 10 222.7 (2) Finishing Materials The CO 2 emissions of the interior and exterior finishing materials for each building function and section were calculated using only the limited information available during the early design phase [ 42 – 44 ].

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Story, Step, Basic, Front, Areas, Floors, Glass, Back, Walls, Rate, Sides]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 6 of 22 The assessment items were categorized according to building element, as shown in Figure 2 . The models to determine the area of the finishing materials for each building element were developed after analyzing the 60 types of drawings and finish schedules. These models use the provisional perimeter formula developed in this study to calculate the element in which a particular finishing material was used for each building element, encompassing the interior and exterior perimeters of the standard floor for each major plane type and using the variables of numbers of units and cores, unit area, and exclusive use area, as well as the basic information entered during the first process of the assessment Table 4 presents provisional perimeter formulas of a standard floor Table 4. Provisional perimeter formulas of a standard floor Classification Flat-Type Tower-Type Types 2 and 4 Types 3 and 4 Exterior material Exterior wall Front, back, and side walls on high floors p 2 J ` K ` 2 q ? A p 3 J ` 1 q ? A Front and back on low floors p 2 J ` K q ? A p 2 J ` 1 q ? A Side wall on low floors 2 ? A J ? A Interior material Interior wall Residential exclusive area p 4 J ` K q ? a p 4 J ` 1 q ? a Elevator hall/Staircase 4 K ? a 4 ? a J: Number of units; K: Number of cores; A: Floor area; a: Exclusive area The walls, which are considered exterior finishing, were divided into the following categories according to the typical finishing execution: front, back, and sides of high floors; front and back of low floors; and sides of low floors. The area of finishing materials can be calculated as the product of exterior perimeter of the standard floor of the building calculated in Table 4 , number of stories, story height, and wall surface rate as described in Equation (8). For wall openings, such as window frames and glass, as well as for the exterior walls, the area can be calculated as the product of exterior perimeter of the building standard floor, number of stories, story height, and window surface rate (1-the wall surface rate) as described in Equation (9). In addition, for the interior finishing, such as interior walls of the residential building, elevator hall, and staircases, the area can be calculated as the product of interior wall perimeter, which is calculated using the formula presented in Table 4 , number of stories, story height, and number of units as described in Equation (10). The areas of floor and ceiling of the residential unit (exclusive area), access floor, and staircases in the building were determined as the area of the locations where the materials were applied, calculated from the unit area and building area determined in the first step of the assessment The CO 2 emissions of the finishing materials can be assessed using the product of the area of the interior and exterior materials for each building element and the CO 2 emissions factor for each material type, as described in Equation (11): FA EW i “ EP STD i ˆ NS i ˆ SH i ˆ β i , (8) FA EO i “ EP STD i ˆ NS i ˆ SH i ˆ γ i , (9) FA IW i “ IP STD i ˆ NS i ˆ SH i , (10) and CO 2 FM “ ÿ i ´ FA EW i ˆ CF FM j ¯ ` ÿ i ´ FA EO i ˆ CF FM j ¯ ` ´ FA ER ˆ CF FM j ¯ ` ÿ i ´ FA IW i ˆ CF FM j ¯ ` ÿ i ´ FA IF i ˆ CF FM j ¯ ` ÿ i ´ FA IC i ˆ CF FM j ¯ , (11) where FA i EW is the area (m 2 ) of the finishing material for the exterior wall in vertical zone i; EP i STD is the exterior perimeter (m) of a standard floor in vertical zone i (refer to Table 4 ); NS i is the number of stories in vertical zone i; and SH i is story height (m) in vertical zone i. Furthermore, β i is the wall

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Makes, Stone, Pvc, Present, Field, Tile, Plate, Diesel, Coat]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 7 of 22 surface rate of the exterior wall in vertical zone i; FA i EO is the area (m 2 ) of finishing material for the exterior wall opening in vertical zone i ; γ i is the window surface rate (1-the wall surface rate) of the exterior wall in vertical zone i; FA i IW is the area (m 2 ) of finishing material for the interior wall in vertical zone i; IP i STD is the interior perimeter (m) of a standard floor in vertical zone i (refer to Table 4 ); CO 2 FM is the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) of finishing materials; FA ER is the area (m 2 ) of finishing material for the roof; FA i IF is the area (m 2 ) of finishing material for the floor in vertical zone i ; FA i IC is the area (m 2 ) of finishing material for the ceiling in vertical zone i ; and CF j FM is the CO 2 emissions factor (kg-CO 2 /m 2 ) of finishing material j (refer to Table 5 ). Table 5. CO 2 emissions factors of finishing materials Classification Element Finishing Material Units CO 2 Emissions Factor (kg-CO 2 /Unit) Exterior material Exterior wall Water-based paint m 2 0.36 Silicone-based paint m 2 0.32 Stone coat m 2 11.22 Granite with stone molding m 2 13.43 Tile m 2 7.06 Window frame PVC window frame m 2 5.91 Aluminum window frame m 2 7.57 Curtain wall window frame m 2 4.65 Glass Plate glass m 2 9.86 Insulating glass m 2 22.43 Tempered glass m 2 13.35 (3) CO 2 Emissions Factors of Building Materials This study determined the CO 2 emissions factors for each type of building material using an individual integration method and the South Korean carbon emissions factor [ 45 ] established by the South Korean Ministry of the Environment. In particular, even though the CO 2 emissions factor depends on concrete strength, the current South Korean carbon emissions factor and South Korean LCI DB [ 46 ] include only some of the types of concrete and their strengths. This study used the CO 2 emissions factor determined with the individual integration method for each type of concrete strength and admixture material obtained from a previous study [ 47 , 48 ]. Furthermore, for consistency in the assessment of the CO 2 emissions factor and assessment results, this study used the South Korean carbon emissions factor as the CO 2 emissions factors of all building materials, excluding ready-mixed concrete. Tables 3 and 5 present the CO 2 emissions factors of concrete and finishing materials 2.1.2. Construction Process In the construction process, the CO 2 emissions can be evaluated in terms of energy consumption by freight vehicles transporting building materials to the building site, in addition to emissions produced by construction machinery, field offices, and other facilities involved in the construction of the building. However, it is difficult to produce a detailed construction schedule in the early design phase. Moreover, this stage makes up less than 3% of the building LCCO 2 emissions. Hence, this study used the average energy consumption by unit area ( i.e , diesel consumption: 5.24 ` /m 2 , gasoline consumption: 0.05 ` /m 2 , electricity consumption: 10.47 kWh/m 2 ) derived by a previous study [ 42 ]. Equations (12) and (13) represent the CO 2 emissions in the construction stage: CO 2 CP “ ´ 5.24 ˆ CF EN d ` 0.05 ˆ CF EN g ` 10.47 ˆ CF EN e ¯ ˆ GA, (12) and CO 2 CS “ 18.44 ˆ GA, (13)

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Gas, Power, Data, Due, Gross, Oil, Quality]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 8 of 22 where CO 2 CP is the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) in the construction stage; CF d EN is the CO 2 emissions factor of diesel (2.58 kg-CO 2 / ` ); CF g EN is the CO 2 emissions factor of gasoline (2.08 kg-CO 2 / ` ); CF e EN is the CO 2 emissions factor of electricity (0.46 kg-CO 2 /kWh); and GA is the gross area (m 2 ) of a building 2.2. Operation Stage The operation stage considers the CO 2 emissions due to energy consumed during the service life of the building. This is a major stage responsible for about 70% of the building’s LCCO 2 emissions [ 29 ]. The emissions from this stage can be assessed using the service life of the building, amount of energy consumed, and the CO 2 emissions factor as described in Equation (14) CO 2 OS “ SL ÿ n “ 1 p 1 ` RR q n ´ 1 ˆ ÿ k p EC k ˆ CF EN k q , (14) where CO 2 OS is the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) in the operation stage; SL is the service life of the building (years); RR is the annual reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness; EC k is the annual energy consumption of the energy source k; and CF k EN is the CO 2 emissions factor of energy source k (refer to Table 6 ). This study proposed three kinds of assessment models ( i.e , direct input model, estimation model, and energy efficiency rating model) based on analysis of the “South Korea Energy Census Report” [ 49 ] and the “South Korea Building Energy Efficiency Rating System” [ 50 ] in order to efficiently assess energy consumption depending on the timing of the assessment and available data. Moreover, the “2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories” [ 51 ] has been analyzed to evaluate CO 2 emissions during the operation stage, and the corresponding database of CO 2 emissions factors has been created, as shown in Table 6 . The measured CO 2 emissions factors for electricity and district heating as determined by the Korea Power Exchange and Korea District Heating Corporation should be applied [ 52 , 53 ]. Gas and kerosene utilize the basic CO 2 emissions factor of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines [ 51 ]. Table 6. CO 2 emissions factors of energy sources Classification CO 2 Emissions Factor Unit Source Kerosene 2.441 kg-CO 2 / ` 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventory [ 51 ] Medium quality heavy oil 3.003 kg-CO 2 / ` Diesel 2.580 kg-CO 2 / ` Gasoline 2.080 kg-CO 2 / ` Propane 2.889 kg-CO 2 /kg Gas 2.200 kg-CO 2 /Nm 3 Electricity 0.495 kg-CO 2 /kWh Korea Power Exchange District heating 0.051 kg-CO 2 /MJ Korea District Heating Corporation 2.2.1. Direct Input Model The direct input model uses the annual amount of energy from various sources consumed by a building (refer to Equation (14)). This method is used when annual energy consumption data are available, e.g., if the energy consumption can be predicted based on computer simulations during the early design phase.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Every, Hot, Lighting, Part]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 9 of 22 2.2.2. Estimation Model The estimation model predicts the energy consumption pattern of a building using an analysis of previously accumulated survey data. The calculated result is typically in the form of annual energy consumption and depends on the utility and gross area of the building. To ensure the reliability of the estimation model, this study investigated and analyzed the average energy consumption based on the heating system used by the apartment building and the average energy consumption of the office building determined from the Energy Census Report (2014) [ 49 ], which is published every three years by the Korea Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy. The mixed-use building, which was not specified in the Energy Census Report, was categorized as part apartment and part office building and, therefore, utilized the average energy consumption values of both an apartment and office building. Table 7 lists the average energy consumption for the apartment building analyzed in this study. Equation (15) represents the estimation model for evaluating the CO 2 emissions during the operation stage CO 2 OS “ SL ÿ n “ 1 p 1 ` RR q n ´ 1 ˆ GA ˆ ÿ k p EC EM k ˆ CF EN k q , (15) where CO 2 OS is the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) in the operation stage; SL is the service life of the building (years); RR is the annual reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness; GA is the gross area (m 2 ) of the building; EC k EM is the annual energy consumption per unit area based on the estimation model (refer to Table 7 ); and CF k EN is the CO 2 emissions factor of energy source k (refer to Table 6 ). 2.2.3. Energy Efficiency Rating Model The energy efficiency rating model is the one used by the South Korea Building Energy Efficiency Rating Certification System for the construction of an apartment building or commercial building The annual CO 2 emissions per exclusive area due to air-conditioning, heating, hot water, lighting, and ventilation were inputted into the model based upon the Building Energy Efficiency Rating Certification System [ 50 ]. Equation (16) represents the energy efficiency rating model for evaluating the CO 2 emissions during the operation stage: CO 2 OS “ SL ÿ n “ 1 p 1 ` RR q n ´ 1 ˆ EA ˆ ÿ l CE EERM l , (16) where CO 2 OS represents the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) in the operation stage; SL is the service life of the building (years); RR is the annual reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness; EA is the exclusive area (m 2 ) of the building; and CE l EERM is the annual CO 2 emissions of energy consumption part l, according to the energy efficiency rating model.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Central, Heat]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 10 of 22 Table 7. Average energy consumption values of the apartment building components Classification Kerosene ( ` /year/m 2 ) Medium Quality Heavy Oil ( ` /year/m 2 ) Propane (kg/year/m 2 ) City Gas-Cooking (Nm 3 /year/m 2 ) City Gas-Heating (Nm 3 /year/m 2 ) Electricity (kWh/year/m 2 ) Heat Energy (Mcal/year/m 2 ) Hot Water (Mcal/year/m 2 ) Heating System Heat Source Individual heating Petroleum 6.801 - 1.189 0.008 - 30.785 - - LPG - - 5.529 - - 31.355 - - Electricity 0.045 - 1.346 0.021 - 37.099 - - City Gas - - 0.013 1.141 7.934 35.287 - - Central heating Ordinary - 2.567 0.181 1.039 5.793 33.458 - 0.587 Petroleum - 10.492 0.649 0.567 - 29.277 - 0.484 City Gas - - 0.030 1.191 7.670 34.813 - 0.621 District heating Ordinary - - 0.054 1.376 - 37.990 94.360 0.750

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Transport, Breaker, Time, Grade, Simple, Truck, Min, Ton]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 11 of 22 2.3. End-of-Life Stage The CO 2 emissions of the end-of-life stage include those released during the building’s demolition process, transportation of the waste building materials, and the landfill gas produced by the waste building materials, as described in Equation (17). The demolition process includes an evaluation of the CO 2 emissions from the equipment used to demolish the building. Waste transport emissions include CO 2 emitted during the transport of the generated waste to the landfill. Once in landfill, an evaluation is performed on the CO 2 emissions generated by the waste building materials as landfill gas. However, it is difficult to obtain detailed disposal information in the early design phase. Hence, in this study, the oil consumption for each combination of demolition equipment and landfill equipment was organized into a database and adapted using CO 2 emissions assessment methods based on an analysis of the results of previous studies [ 20 , 54 , 55 ]. Table 8 lists the equipment mileage used during the demolition and landfill processes, and Equations (18)–(20) represent CO 2 emissions in each process of the end-of-life stage: CO 2 ES “ CO 2 DP ` CO 2 TP ` CO 2 LP , (17) CO 2 DP “ QW ˆ EM DP m ˆ CF EN d , (18) CO 2 TP “ QW ˆ DT ˆ CF TR , (19) and CO 2 LP “ QW ˆ EM LP m ˆ CF EN d , (20) where CO 2 ES represents the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) in the end-of-life stage; CO 2 DP is the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) in the demolition process based on demolition equipment; CO 2 TP is the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) in the transportation process based on transportation vehicles; CO 2 LP is the CO 2 emissions (kg-CO 2 ) in the disposal process based on disposal equipment; QW is the quantities of wasted building materials (ton); EM m DP is the mileage ( ` /ton) of demolition equipment m (refer to Table 8 ); CF d EN is the CO 2 emissions factor of diesel (2.58 kg-CO 2 / ` ); DT is the distance (km) that waste building materials are transported to the landfill site; CF TR is the CO 2 emissions factor of a truck (0.249 kg-CO 2 /ton ¨ km); and EM m LP is the mileage ( ` /ton) of landfill equipment m (refer to Table 8 ). Table 8. Mileage of demolition and landfill equipment Usage Equipment Combination and Dimensions Mileage ( ` /ton) Demolition Backhoe (1.0 m 3 ) + Giant Breaker (0.7 m 3 ) 3.642 Pavement Breakers (25-kg grade) 2 units + Air Compressor (3.5 m 3 /min) 2.385 Backhoe (1.0 m 3 ) + Hydraulic Breaker (1.0 m 3 ) + Giant Breaker (0.7 m 3 ) 4.286 Backhoe (0.4 m 3 ) + Breaker (0.4 m 3 ) 4.760 Landfill Dozer (D 8 N, 15 PL, 6 PL) + Compactor (32 tons) 0.150 3. Development of a B-SCAT This section describes the development of a B-SCAT for supporting low-carbon building design and efficient decision-making processes in the early design phase of a building. This tool divides the assessment procedure into basic information, construction, operation, and end-of-life steps. In particular, it facilitates assessment by making simple selections of supply materials for each building area in the construction stage. This process enables diverse alternative assessments to be made within a limited timeframe. Default values calculated from the database were provided for the construction process, operation stage, and end-of-life stage in order to reduce the time and labor required for the assessment.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Land, Location]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 12 of 22 3.1. Step 1: Basic Information The basic information includes the architectural scheme data of the evaluated building. Items, such as site location and zone, are entered; the function and structural form of the evaluated building are selected; and the gross area, building-to-land ratio, and floor area ratio within the complex profile are calculated. In addition, the details of the evaluated building are set, establishing details, such as standard floor area, exclusive area, number of units, number of stories, structural type, plane type, and wall surface rate. Figure 3 illustrates the interface of the basic information in the B-SCAT Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 11 of 21 3. Development of a B ‐ SCAT This section describes the development of a B ‐ SCAT for supporting low ‐ carbon building design and efficient decision ‐ making processes in the early design phase of a building This tool divides the assessment procedure into basic information, construction, operation, and end ‐ of ‐ life steps In particular, it facilitates assessment by making simple selections of supply materials for each building area in the construction stage This process enables diverse alternative assessments to be made within a limited timeframe Default values calculated from the database were provided for the construction process, operation stage, and end ‐ of ‐ life stage in order to reduce the time and labor required for the assessment 3.1. Step 1: Basic Information The basic information includes the architectural scheme data of the evaluated building Items, such as site location and zone, are entered; the function and structural form of the evaluated building are selected; and the gross area, building ‐ to ‐ land ratio, and floor area ratio within the complex profile are calculated In addition, the details of the evaluated building are set, establishing details, such as standard floor area, exclusive area, number of units, number of stories, structural type, plane type, and wall surface rate Figure 3 illustrates the interface of the basic information in the B ‐ SCAT Figure 3. Interface of the basic information 3.2. Step 2: Construction Stage During the construction stage, the CO 2 emissions resulting from the production of building materials are assessed, and the input interface is established depending on the function of the building To assess the CO 2 emissions for an apartment complex, data on the residential building, annexed building, underground parking lot, and landscaping were entered To assess the emissions for an office building, data on the office building, annexed building, underground parking lot, and landscaping were entered To assess the emissions for a mixed ‐ use building, data on the residential building, office building, annexed building, underground parking lot, and landscaping were entered In addition, the CO 2 emissions were assessed by selecting the type of materials supplied as structural and finishing materials for each assessment item Figure 4 illustrates the interface of the construction stage Figure 3. Interface of the basic information 3.2. Step 2: Construction Stage During the construction stage, the CO 2 emissions resulting from the production of building materials are assessed, and the input interface is established depending on the function of the building To assess the CO 2 emissions for an apartment complex, data on the residential building, annexed building, underground parking lot, and landscaping were entered. To assess the emissions for an office building, data on the office building, annexed building, underground parking lot, and landscaping were entered. To assess the emissions for a mixed-use building, data on the residential building, office building, annexed building, underground parking lot, and landscaping were entered. In addition, the CO 2 emissions were assessed by selecting the type of materials supplied as structural and finishing materials for each assessment item. Figure 4 illustrates the interface of the construction stage.

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 13 of 22 Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 12 of 21 Figure 4. Interface of the construction stage 3.3. Step 3: Operation Stage The assessment method of the operation stage is divided into three types In the direct input model, the annual energy consumption of the evaluated building is entered and assessed directly The estimation model assesses the CO 2 emissions based on annual energy consumption per unit area, which depends on the building function and heating system This model utilizes the database included in the tool and can be useful when energy consumption data is unavailable for the building of interest The energy efficiency rating model assesses the CO 2 emissions by directly inputting the assessment results of the CO 2 emissions of a building, utilizing the Energy Efficiency Rating Certification System of the evaluated building or the energy simulation program provided by the Korea Energy Management Corporation Figure 5 illustrates the interface of the operation stage 3.4. Step 4: End ‐ of ‐ Life Stage The end ‐ of ‐ life stage involves an assessment of the CO 2 emissions produced at the end of a building’s life cycle, when structures are demolished and waste building material is generated and processed The assessment includes analysis of the equipment used in the building demolition and waste landfill process Figure 6 illustrates the interface of the end ‐ of ‐ life stage Figure 4. Interface of the construction stage 3.3. Step 3: Operation Stage The assessment method of the operation stage is divided into three types. In the direct input model, the annual energy consumption of the evaluated building is entered and assessed directly The estimation model assesses the CO 2 emissions based on annual energy consumption per unit area, which depends on the building function and heating system. This model utilizes the database included in the tool and can be useful when energy consumption data is unavailable for the building of interest The energy efficiency rating model assesses the CO 2 emissions by directly inputting the assessment results of the CO 2 emissions of a building, utilizing the Energy Efficiency Rating Certification System of the evaluated building or the energy simulation program provided by the Korea Energy Management Corporation. Figure 5 illustrates the interface of the operation stage 3.4. Step 4: End-of-Life Stage The end-of-life stage involves an assessment of the CO 2 emissions produced at the end of a building’s life cycle, when structures are demolished and waste building material is generated and processed. The assessment includes analysis of the equipment used in the building demolition and waste landfill process. Figure 6 illustrates the interface of the end-of-life stage.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: View, Lower]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 14 of 22 Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 13 of 21 Figure 5. Interface of the operation stage Figure 6. Interface of the end ‐ of ‐ life stage 3.5. Step 5: Assessment Results The assessment results, as shown in Figure 7, are displayed on one screen that includes all of the details of the assessment of the LCCO 2 emissions. The upper region of the comprehensive assessment view displays the profile of the building of interest, the assessment method used for each stage, the details of the database used, and the basis for the calculations The lower region presents a comparative analysis of the CO 2 emissions assessment results in each stage according to the standard building type selected during the assessment 4. Case Study To review the applicability of the B ‐ SCAT, an assessment was conducted using the basic data for a building that was recently completed For comparison with the assessment results, the finishing materials used during the production process of construction stage were selected based on the same basic drawings and specifications drafted during the early design phase used for those results 4.1. Evaluated Building The project’s evaluated building comprised Apartment Complex M, which contains 13 residential buildings Table 9 presents the architectural scheme of the analyzed building Figure 5. Interface of the operation stage Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 13 of 21 Figure 5. Interface of the operation stage Figure 6. Interface of the end ‐ of ‐ life stage 3.5. Step 5: Assessment Results The assessment results, as shown in Figure 7, are displayed on one screen that includes all of the details of the assessment of the LCCO 2 emissions The upper region of the comprehensive assessment view displays the profile of the building of interest, the assessment method used for each stage, the details of the database used, and the basis for the calculations The lower region presents a comparative analysis of the CO 2 emissions assessment results in each stage according to the standard building type selected during the assessment 4. Case Study To review the applicability of the B ‐ SCAT, an assessment was conducted using the basic data for a building that was recently completed For comparison with the assessment results, the finishing materials used during the production process of construction stage were selected based on the same basic drawings and specifications drafted during the early design phase used for those results 4.1. Evaluated Building The project’s evaluated building comprised Apartment Complex M, which contains 13 residential buildings Table 9 presents the architectural scheme of the analyzed building Figure 6. Interface of the end-of-life stage 3.5. Step 5: Assessment Results The assessment results, as shown in Figure 7 , are displayed on one screen that includes all of the details of the assessment of the LCCO 2 emissions. The upper region of the comprehensive assessment view displays the profile of the building of interest, the assessment method used for each stage, the details of the database used, and the basis for the calculations. The lower region presents a comparative analysis of the CO 2 emissions assessment results in each stage according to the standard building type selected during the assessment 4. Case Study To review the applicability of the B-SCAT, an assessment was conducted using the basic data for a building that was recently completed. For comparison with the assessment results, the finishing materials used during the production process of construction stage were selected based on the same basic drawings and specifications drafted during the early design phase used for those results 4.1. Evaluated Building The project’s evaluated building comprised Apartment Complex M, which contains 13 residential buildings. Table 9 presents the architectural scheme of the analyzed building.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Plan, Local]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 15 of 22 Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 14 of 21 Figure 7. Interface of the assessment result Table 9. Architectural scheme of the analyzed building Project Name Apartment Complex M Zoning district Quasi ‐ residential area Site area 49,698.21 m 2 Structure Reinforced concrete structure Building area 16,320.20 m 2 Number of buildings 13 Landscape area 22,203.20 m 2 Unit type Types 2, 4, and 6 Gross area Above ground 136,037.57 m 2 Plane type Flat type, Tower type Underground 72,355.21 m 2 Service life 40 years Total 208,392.78 m 2 Heating system Local heating Building ‐ to ‐ land ratio 28.97 % Construction period 25 months Floor area ratio 239.14 % 4.2. Assessment Conditions As shown in Table 10, the assessment conditions were selected according to the input items for each assessment stage, which were based on the plan, drawings, and specifications of the apartment complex Table 10. Assessment conditions Classification B ‐ SCAT Conventional Assessment Model Construction stage Basic drawing and specification BOQ Default value (=18.44 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 ) Operation stage Estimation model (local heating) (Reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness: 0%, 1%, 1.5%) End ‐ of ‐ life stage Demolition process Backhoe (1.0 m 3 ) + giant breaker (0.7 m 3 ) Transportation process 20 ‐ ton dump truck (distance: 30 km) Landfill process Dozer (D 8 N, 15 PL, 6 PL) + compactor (32 tons) Figure 7. Interface of the assessment result Table 9. Architectural scheme of the analyzed building Project Name Apartment Complex M Zoning district Quasi-residential area Site area 49,698.21 m 2 Structure Reinforced concrete structure Building area 16,320.20 m 2 Number of buildings 13 Landscape area 22,203.20 m 2 Unit type Types 2, 4, and 6 Gross area Above ground 136,037.57 m 2 Plane type Flat type, Tower type Underground 72,355.21 m 2 Service life 40 years Total 208,392.78 m 2 Heating system Local heating Building-to-land ratio 28.97 % Construction period 25 months Floor area ratio 239.14 % 4.2. Assessment Conditions As shown in Table 10 , the assessment conditions were selected according to the input items for each assessment stage, which were based on the plan, drawings, and specifications of the apartment complex Table 10. Assessment conditions Classification B-SCAT Conventional Assessment Model Construction stage Basic drawing and specification BOQ Default value (=18.44 kg-CO 2 /m 2 ) Operation stage Estimation model (local heating) (Reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness: 0%, 1%, 1.5%) End-of-life stage Demolition process Backhoe (1.0 m 3 ) + giant breaker (0.7 m 3 ) Transportation process 20-ton dump truck (distance: 30 km) Landfill process Dozer (D 8 N, 15 PL, 6 PL) + compactor (32 tons)

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Act, Tax, Marble, Holding, Rise]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 16 of 22 B-SCAT, and the construction and design provisions of the evaluated building, were analyzed according to the input items of the residential and annexed buildings. The plane type and structural form of the residential building were determined to be the flat-type and tower-type, reinforced concrete structure, and wall type, respectively, and the wall surface ratio was set at 55%. In addition, the superintendent office, holding facilities, and sports center were identified as annexes in the analysis, and their wall surface ratio was also set to 60%. In the construction stage, the materials used for each assessment item in each building element were analyzed based on an analysis of the plan of the apartment complex and the table of interior and exterior finishing materials. In particular, the use of 27 MPa ordinary concrete was assumed for the first to the sixth floors of the residential buildings, in the interest of structural stability, while the use of 21 MPa concrete was assumed for the seventh floors and higher, to achieve economic efficiency. In addition, the exterior walls were assumed to use granite and stone moldings for the first three floors and water-based paint for the fourth floors and higher. Aluminum window frames and insulating glass were assumed for all 13 buildings of the apartment complex. The annexed buildings, low-rise buildings with 1 to 3 stories, which comprised the superintendent office, holding facilities, and sports center, were assumed to use 21 MPa concrete. Given the function of those buildings, it was assumed the exterior walls were marble and granite, and the interior walls had terrazzo and water-based paint. In the operation stage, given the absence of results from a simulation of the energy consumption of the apartment complex or from the preliminary Energy Efficiency Rating Certification System, the estimation model was used for analysis. The local heating system, which is the actual heating system of the evaluated building, was selected to calculate CO 2 emissions. The service life of the evaluated building was set to 40 years, according to the building durability period of the South Korean Corporate Tax Act [ 56 ]. The reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness was assumed as 0%, 1%, and 1.5% in the end-of-life stage, the equipment selected for demolition included a backhoe (1.0 m 3 ) and a giant breaker (0.7 m 3 ). Also included was the 30 km distance between the building site and the landfill processing site. A bulldozer (D 8 N, 15 PL, 6 PL) and compactor (32 tons) were selected as the equipment used in the landfill process 4.3. Assessment Results Figure 8 presents the results of the LCCO 2 emissions assessment of the apartment complex. The CO 2 emissions produced during the construction stage were assessed as 502.76 kg-CO 2 /m 2 using the tool developed in this study and 515.71 kg-CO 2 /m 2 based on the actual BOQ, yielding an error rate of 2.51%. The CO 2 emissions of the operation stage, which applied 0% of the reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness, were assessed as 1691.72 kg-CO 2 /m 2 . In addition, the LCCO 2 emissions were assessed as 2225.48 kg-CO 2 /m 2 and 2238.43 kg-CO 2 /m 2 , respectively, yielding an error rate of approximately 0.58% Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 15 of 21 B ‐ SCAT, and the construction and design provisions of the evaluated building, were analyzed according to the input items of the residential and annexed buildings The plane type and structural form of the residential building were determined to be the flat ‐ type and tower ‐ type, reinforced concrete structure, and wall type, respectively, and the wall surface ratio was set at 55% In addition, the superintendent office, holding facilities, and sports center were identified as annexes in the analysis, and their wall surface ratio was also set to 60% In the construction stage, the materials used for each assessment item in each building element were analyzed based on an analysis of the plan of the apartment complex and the table of interior and exterior finishing materials In particular, the use of 27 MPa ordinary concrete was assumed for the first to the sixth floors of the residential buildings, in the interest of structural stability, while the use of 21 MPa concrete was assumed for the seventh floors and higher, to achieve economic efficiency In addition, the exterior walls were assumed to use granite and stone moldings for the first three floors and water ‐ based paint for the fourth floors and higher Aluminum window frames and insulating glass were assumed for all 13 buildings of the apartment complex The annexed buildings, low ‐ rise buildings with 1 to 3 stories, which comprised the superintendent office, holding facilities, and sports center, were assumed to use 21 MPa concrete Given the function of those buildings, it was assumed the exterior walls were marble and granite, and the interior walls had terrazzo and water ‐ based paint In the operation stage, given the absence of results from a simulation of the energy consumption of the apartment complex or from the preliminary Energy Efficiency Rating Certification System, the estimation model was used for analysis The local heating system, which is the actual heating system of the evaluated building, was selected to calculate CO 2 emissions The service life of the evaluated building was set to 40 years, according to the building durability period of the South Korean Corporate Tax Act [56] The reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness was assumed as 0%, 1%, and 1.5% in the end ‐ of ‐ life stage, the equipment selected for demolition included a backhoe (1.0 m 3 ) and a giant breaker (0.7 m 3 ) Also included was the 30 km distance between the building site and the landfill processing site A bulldozer (D 8 N, 15 PL, 6 PL) and compactor (32 tons) were selected as the equipment used in the landfill process 4.3. Assessment Results Figure 8 presents the results of the LCCO 2 emissions assessment of the apartment complex The CO 2 emissions produced during the construction stage were assessed as 502.76 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 using the tool developed in this study and 515.71 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 based on the actual BOQ, yielding an error rate of 2.51% The CO 2 emissions of the operation stage, which applied 0% of the reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness, were assessed as 1691.72 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 In addition, the LCCO 2 emissions were assessed as 2225.48 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 and 2238.43 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , respectively, yielding an error rate of approximately 0.58% Figure 8. Assessment results 4.4. Comparative Analysis of Assessment Results of Construction Stage From the assessment results from the previously conducted building LCCO 2 emissions assessment tool and from the drawings and specifications, this study conducted a comparative Figure 8. Assessment results 4.4. Comparative Analysis of Assessment Results of Construction Stage From the assessment results from the previously conducted building LCCO 2 emissions assessment tool and from the drawings and specifications, this study conducted a comparative analysis of the

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 17 of 22 assessment results of the production stage after subdividing the results into residential buildings, annexed buildings, and underground parking lots 4.4.1. Residential Buildings As shown in Figure 9 , this study conducted a comparative analysis of the CO 2 emissions per unit area of the supply materials for each residential building region calculated using this tool. The assessment items (Buildings 701, 702, 703, and 704) and the average CO 2 emissions per unit area of the residential buildings were calculated using the BOQ. Consequently, the results calculated with the tool for Buildings 701, 702, 703, and 704 were 443.74 kg-CO 2 /m 2 , 437.13 kg-CO 2 /m 2 , 438.42 kg-CO 2 /m 2 , and 445.16 kg-CO 2 /m 2 , respectively. Compared with the value of 449.23 kg-CO 2 /m 2 assessed from the BOQ, these values yielded error rates of 1.22%, 2.69%, 2.41%, and 0.91%, respectively. In addition, the average assessment result of the tool was 441.59 kg-CO 2 /m 2 , which closely approximated the BOQ assessment results with an error rate of 1.70% Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 16 of 21 analysis of the assessment results of the production stage after subdividing the results into residential buildings, annexed buildings, and underground parking lots 4.4.1 Residential Buildings As shown in Figure 9, this study conducted a comparative analysis of the CO 2 emissions per unit area of the supply materials for each residential building region calculated using this tool The assessment items (Buildings 701, 702, 703, and 704) and the average CO 2 emissions per unit area of the residential buildings were calculated using the BOQ Consequently, the results calculated with the tool for Buildings 701, 702, 703, and 704 were 443.74 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , 437.13 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , 438.42 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , and 445.16 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , respectively Compared with the value of 449.23 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 assessed from the BOQ, these values yielded error rates of 1.22%, 2.69%, 2.41%, and 0.91%, respectively In addition, the average assessment result of the tool was 441.59 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , which closely approximated the BOQ assessment results with an error rate of 1.70% Figure 9. Assessment results for each residential building 4.4.2 Annexed Building For the annexed buildings, as shown in Figure 10, a comparative analysis was conducted on the CO 2 emissions per unit area of supply materials for each building part in the superintendent office (SO), holding facilities (HF), and sports center (SC). The annexed buildings’ average CO 2 emissions per unit area were calculated from the BOQ Consequently, the results assessed using this tool for the SO, the HF, and the SC were 427.46 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , 445.65 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , and 432.54 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , respectively; these are valid results compared with the value of 442.52 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 obtained from the BOQ In addition, the error rates were 3.40%, 0.71%, and 2.26%, respectively, and the average error rate was 1.65% Figure 10. Assessment results for each annexed building Figure 9. Assessment results for each residential building 4.4.2. Annexed Building For the annexed buildings, as shown in Figure 10 , a comparative analysis was conducted on the CO 2 emissions per unit area of supply materials for each building part in the superintendent office (SO), holding facilities (HF), and sports center (SC). The annexed buildings’ average CO 2 emissions per unit area were calculated from the BOQ. Consequently, the results assessed using this tool for the SO, the HF, and the SC were 427.46 kg-CO 2 /m 2 , 445.65 kg-CO 2 /m 2 , and 432.54 kg-CO 2 /m 2 , respectively; these are valid results compared with the value of 442.52 kg-CO 2 /m 2 obtained from the BOQ. In addition, the error rates were 3.40%, 0.71%, and 2.26%, respectively, and the average error rate was 1.65% Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 16 of 21 analysis of the assessment results of the production stage after subdividing the results into residential buildings, annexed buildings, and underground parking lots 4.4.1 Residential Buildings As shown in Figure 9, this study conducted a comparative analysis of the CO 2 emissions per unit area of the supply materials for each residential building region calculated using this tool The assessment items (Buildings 701, 702, 703, and 704) and the average CO 2 emissions per unit area of the residential buildings were calculated using the BOQ Consequently, the results calculated with the tool for Buildings 701, 702, 703, and 704 were 443.74 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , 437.13 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , 438.42 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , and 445.16 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , respectively Compared with the value of 449.23 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 assessed from the BOQ, these values yielded error rates of 1.22%, 2.69%, 2.41%, and 0.91%, respectively In addition, the average assessment result of the tool was 441.59 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , which closely approximated the BOQ assessment results with an error rate of 1.70% Figure 9. Assessment results for each residential building 4.4.2 Annexed Building For the annexed buildings, as shown in Figure 10, a comparative analysis was conducted on the CO 2 emissions per unit area of supply materials for each building part in the superintendent office (SO), holding facilities (HF), and sports center (SC) The annexed buildings’ average CO 2 emissions per unit area were calculated from the BOQ Consequently, the results assessed using this tool for the SO, the HF, and the SC were 427.46 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , 445.65 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , and 432.54 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , respectively; these are valid results compared with the value of 442.52 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 obtained from the BOQ In addition, the error rates were 3.40%, 0.71%, and 2.26%, respectively, and the average error rate was 1.65% Figure 10. Assessment results for each annexed building Figure 10. Assessment results for each annexed building.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Size]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 18 of 22 4.4.3. Underground Parking Lot As shown in Figure 11 , a comparative analysis was conducted on the CO 2 emissions per unit area of supply materials for each building part of the underground parking lot (PL). The average CO 2 emissions per unit area of the underground parking lot was calculated from the BOQ. Consequently, the results assessed using this tool for the PL was 676.52 kg-CO 2 /m 2 , respectively; this is a valid result compared with the value of 654.27 kg-CO 2 /m 2 obtained from the BOQ. In addition, the error rate was 3.40%, respectively Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 17 of 21 4.4.3 Underground Parking Lot As shown in Figure 11, a comparative analysis was conducted on the CO 2 emissions per unit area of supply materials for each building part of the underground parking lot (PL) The average CO 2 emissions per unit area of the underground parking lot was calculated from the BOQ Consequently, the results assessed using this tool for the PL was 676.52 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , respectively; this is a valid result compared with the value of 654.27 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 obtained from the BOQ In addition, the error rate was 3.40%, respectively Figure 11. Assessment results for each underground parking lot 4.5. Comparative Analysis of Assessment Results of Operation Stage As shown in Figure 12, this study conducted a comparative analysis of the CO 2 emissions per unit area of operation stage by the reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness The assessment results applied 0%, 1%, and 1.5% of the reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness were 1691.72 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , 2493.80 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , and 3023.46 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , respectively Through this evaluation result, it confirmed that the evaluation result of the operational stage changed according to whether or not the annual reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness and size of this value was applied That is, even if 1% of the annual reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness was applied, 47% of energy consumption increased, and 79% of energy consumption increased in 1.5% application during the service life of the building (40 years) Therefore, in order to achieve the low ‐ carbon building, the selection of energy equipment, which have low reduction rates of operational energy effectiveness, is very important Figure 12. Assessment results by the annual reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness Figure 11. Assessment results for each underground parking lot 4.5. Comparative Analysis of Assessment Results of Operation Stage As shown in Figure 12 , this study conducted a comparative analysis of the CO 2 emissions per unit area of operation stage by the reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness. The assessment results applied 0%, 1%, and 1.5% of the reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness were 1691.72 kg-CO 2 /m 2 , 2493.80 kg-CO 2 /m 2 , and 3023.46 kg-CO 2 /m 2 , respectively. Through this evaluation result, it confirmed that the evaluation result of the operational stage changed according to whether or not the annual reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness and size of this value was applied. That is, even if 1% of the annual reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness was applied, 47% of energy consumption increased, and 79% of energy consumption increased in 1.5% application during the service life of the building (40 years). Therefore, in order to achieve the low-carbon building, the selection of energy equipment, which have low reduction rates of operational energy effectiveness, is very important Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 17 of 21 4.4.3 Underground Parking Lot As shown in Figure 11, a comparative analysis was conducted on the CO 2 emissions per unit area of supply materials for each building part of the underground parking lot (PL) The average CO 2 emissions per unit area of the underground parking lot was calculated from the BOQ Consequently, the results assessed using this tool for the PL was 676.52 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , respectively; this is a valid result compared with the value of 654.27 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 obtained from the BOQ In addition, the error rate was 3.40%, respectively Figure 11. Assessment results for each underground parking lot 4.5. Comparative Analysis of Assessment Results of Operation Stage As shown in Figure 12, this study conducted a comparative analysis of the CO 2 emissions per unit area of operation stage by the reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness The assessment results applied 0%, 1%, and 1.5% of the reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness were 1691.72 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , 2493.80 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , and 3023.46 kg ‐ CO 2 /m 2 , respectively Through this evaluation result, it confirmed that the evaluation result of the operational stage changed according to whether or not the annual reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness and size of this value was applied That is, even if 1% of the annual reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness was applied, 47% of energy consumption increased, and 79% of energy consumption increased in 1.5% application during the service life of the building (40 years) Therefore, in order to achieve the low ‐ carbon building, the selection of energy equipment, which have low reduction rates of operational energy effectiveness, is very important Figure 12. Assessment results by the annual reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness Figure 12. Assessment results by the annual reduction rate of operational energy effectiveness.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Range, New, Eco, Wang, Sweden, China, Zuo, Under, Mahapatra, Prod, Grant, Close, Chen, Author, Shi]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 19 of 22 5. Conclusions The purpose of this study was to develop a B-SCAT that is applicable in the early design phase for low-carbon building design. The conclusions of this study are as follows: (1) After separating the life cycle of a building into various stages, including construction, operation, and end-of-life, a simplified LCCO 2 emissions assessment model and B-SCAT were developed for application to the early design phase of buildings (2) In the construction stage, the supply quantities coefficient of structural materials for each building function and section were analyzed, and the equations were constructed based on an analysis of the types and areas of the finishing materials used for each building element (3) In the operation stage, the model of assessment was identified using models for direct input, estimation, and energy efficiency rating in order to provide a proactive assessment according to the time of the assessment and the available data. An assessment method was subsequently proposed (4) The average of the CO 2 emissions assessment results for residential buildings tested during the case study of the B-SCAT was 441.59 kg-CO 2 /m 2 per unit area; this is close to the assessment result of 449.23 kg-CO 2 /m 2 based on the BOQ, yielding an error rate of 1.70% (5) According to the analysis of the annexed buildings and underground parking lots using the B-SCAT, the average CO 2 emissions were determined to be 435.22 kg-CO 2 /m 2 and 676.52 kg-CO 2 /m 2 per unit area, respectively, which closely approximates the results of 442.52 kg-CO 2 /m 2 and 654.27 kg-CO 2 /m 2 , respectively, based on the BOQ, with error rates of 1.65% and 3.40% respectively The B-SCAT developed by this study for use in the early design phase is expected to predict the environmental performance of future construction projects and alternative assessments, leading to low-carbon building designs Currently, according to application of the mainly-constructed database in Korea, it is considered to broaden the range of the B-SCAT database in order that other countries utilize B-SCAT. Especially, it is considered to be possible to apply identical building life cycle CO 2 emission assessment methods in the early stage of a project, which is suggested in this paper, to other countries Acknowledgments: This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (No. 2015 R 1 A 5 A 1037548) and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No. 20110028794) Author Contributions: All authors contributed substantially to all aspects of this article Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript: LCCO 2 Life Cycle CO 2 BOQ Bill of Quantities B-SCAT Building Simplified LCCO 2 emissions Assessment Tool INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contributions References 1 Wang, Q.; Chen, X. Energy policies for managing China’s carbon emission Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev 2015 , 50 , 470–479. [ CrossRef ] 2 Gorobets, A. Eco-centric policy for sustainable development J. Clean. Prod 2014 , 64 , 654–655. [ CrossRef ] 3 Mahapatra, K. Energy use and CO 2 emission of new residential buildings built under specific requirements—The case of Växjö municipality, Sweden Appl. Energy 2015 , 152 , 31–38. [ CrossRef ] 4 Shi, Q.; Yu, T.; Zuo, J. What leads to low-carbon buildings? A China study Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev 2015 , 50 , 726–734. [ CrossRef ]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Liu, Art, Lee, Rizzi, Trucco, Iskandar, Wen, Baldassarri, Ries, Rashid, Noor, Ribera, Seed, Siong, Choi, Islam, Zhao, Castellano, Shin, Frey, Europe, Single, Woo, Campbell, Kovacic, Inf, Paris, Jeong, Jsp, Kang, Srinivasan, Annunziata, Vuckovic, Tsai, State, Cost, Galal, Guide, France, Fischer, Scarpellini, Colombier, Green, Aia, Zoller, Alshamrani, Yusoff, Washington, Lin, House]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 20 of 22 5 Li, J.; Colombier, M. Managing carbon emissions in China through building energy efficiency J. Environ. Manag 2009 , 90 , 2436–2447. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 6 Stojiljkovic, M.M.; Ignjatovic, M.G.; Vuckovic, G.D. Greenhouse gases emission assessment in residential sector through buildings simulations and operation optimization Energy 2015 , 92 , 420–434. [ CrossRef ] 7 International Energy Agency (IEA) Energy Technology Perspectives OECD/IEA ; IEA: Paris, France, 2010 8 Zuo, J.; Zhao, Z.Y. Green building research-current status and future agenda: A review Renew. Sustain Energy Rev 2014 , 30 , 271–281. [ CrossRef ] 9 Urge-Vorsatz, D.; Koeppel, S.; Mirasgedis, S. Appraisal of policy instruments for reducing buildings’ CO 2 emissions Build. Res. Inf 2007 , 35 , 458–477. [ CrossRef ] 10 Annunziata, E.; Frey, M.; Rizzi, F. Towards nearly zero-energy buildings: The state-of-art of national regulations in Europe Energy 2013 , 57 , 125–133. [ CrossRef ] 11 Rashid, A.F.A.; Yusoff, S. A review of life cycle assessment method for building industry Renew. Sustain Energy Rev 2015 , 45 , 244–248. [ CrossRef ] 12 Bribián, I.Z.; Usón, A.A.; Scarpellini, S. Life cycle assessment in buildings: State-of-the-art and simplified LCA methodology as a complement for building certification Build. Environ 2009 , 44 , 2510–2520. [ CrossRef ] 13 Wen, T.J.; Siong, H.C.; Noor, Z.Z. Assessment of embodied energy and global warming potential of building construction using life cycle analysis approach: Case studies of residential buildings in Iskandar Malaysia Energy Build 2015 , 93 , 295–302. [ CrossRef ] 14 Basbagill, J.; Flager, F.; Lepech, M.; Fischer, M. Application of life-cycle assessment to early stage building design for reduced embodied environmental impacts Build. Environ 2013 , 60 , 81–92. [ CrossRef ] 15 Kovacic, I.; Zoller, V. Building life cycle optimization tools for early design phases Energy 2015 , 92 , 409–419 [ CrossRef ] 16 Asdrubail, F.; Baldassarri, C.; Fthenakis, V. Life cycle analysis in the construction sector: Guiding the optimization of conventional Italian buildings Energy Build 2013 , 64 , 73–89. [ CrossRef ] 17 The American Institute of Architects (AIA) AIA Guide to Building Life Cycle Assessment in Practice ; AIA: Washington, DC, USA, 2010 18 Haapio, A.; Viitaniemi, P. A critical review of building environmental assessment tools Environ. Impact Assess. Rev 2008 , 28 , 469–482. [ CrossRef ] 19 Srinivasan, R.S.; Ingwersen, W.; Trucco, C.; Ries, R.; Campbell, D. Comparison of energy-based indicators used in life cycle assessment tools for buildings Build. Environ 2014 , 79 , 138–151. [ CrossRef ] 20 Roh, S.; Tae, S.; Shin, S.; Woo, J. Development of an optimum design program (SUSB-OPTIMUM) for the life cycle CO 2 assessment of an apartment house in Korea Build. Environ 2014 , 73 , 40–54. [ CrossRef ] 21 Tsai, W.; Lin, S.; Liu, J.; Lin, W.; Lee, K. Incorporating life cycle assessments into building project decision-making: An energy consumption and CO 2 emission perspective Energy 2011 , 36 , 3022–3029 [ CrossRef ] 22 Castellano, J.; Castellano, D.; Ribera, A.; Ciurana, J. Developing a simplified methodology to calculate CO 2 /m 2 emissions per year in the use phase of newly-built, single-family houses Energy Build 2015 , 109 , 90–107. [ CrossRef ] 23 Islam, H.; Jollands, M.; Setunge, S. Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost implication of residential buildings—A review Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev 2015 , 42 , 129–140. [ CrossRef ] 24 Alshamrani, O.S.; Galal, K.; Alkass, S. Integrated LCA-LEED sustainability assessment model for structure and envelope systems of school buildings Energy Build 2014 , 80 , 61–70. [ CrossRef ] 25 BRE. Envest 2 and IMPACT. Available online: http://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=2181 (accessed on 8 May 2016) 26 Lee, K.; Tae, S.; Shin, S. Development of a life cycle assessment program for building (SUSB-LCA) in South Korea Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev 2009 , 13 , 1994–2002. [ CrossRef ] 27 Jeong, Y.S.; Choi, G.S.; Kang, J.S.; Lee, S.E. Development of Life Cycle Assessment Program (K-LCA) for Estimating Environmental Load of Buildings Archit. Inst. Korea 2008 , 24 , 259–266 28 Roh, S.; Tae, S.; Shin, S. Development of building materials embodied greenhouse gases assessment criteria and system (BEGAS) in the newly revised Korea Green Building Certification System (G-SEED) Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev 2014 , 35 , 410–421. [ CrossRef ]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Iso, Park, Lopez, Work, Level, Sharma, Shree, Sharples, Dong, Kong, Mix, Suk, Koo, Baek, Works, Prado, Mesa, Mulet, Luo, Locas, Jang, Ford, Saxena, Suzuki, Kim, Radhi, Hong, Geneva, Asp, Yang, Sethi]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 21 of 22 29 Roh, S.; Tae, S.; Suk, S.J.; Ford, G.; Shin, S. Development of a building life cycle carbon emissions assessment program (BEGAS 2.0) for Korea’s green building index certification system Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev 2016 , 53 , 954–965. [ CrossRef ] 30 Luo, Z.; Yang, L.; Liu, J. Embodied carbon emissions of office building: A case study of China’s 78 office buildings Build. Environ 2016 , 95 , 365–371. [ CrossRef ] 31 Dong, Y.H.; Ng, S.T. A life cycle assessment model for evaluating the environmental impacts of building construction in Hong Kong Build. Environ 2015 , 89 , 183–191. [ CrossRef ] 32 Radhi, H.; Sharples, S. Global warming implications of facade parameters: A life cycle assessment of residential buildings in Bahrain. Environ Impact Assess. Rev 2013 , 38 , 99–108 33 Taborianski, V.M.; Prado, R.T.A. Methodology of CO 2 emission evaluation in the life cycle of office building façades Environ. Impact Assess. Rev 2012 , 33 , 41–47. [ CrossRef ] 34 Jang, M.; Hong, T.; Ji, C. Hybrid LCA model for assessing the embodied environmental impacts of buildings in South Korea Environ. Impact Assess. Rev 2015 , 50 , 143–155. [ CrossRef ] 35 Kim, C.J.; Kim, J.; Hong, T.; Koo, C.; Jeong, K.; Park, H.S. A program-level management system for the life cycle environmental and economic assessment of complex building projects Environ. Impact Assess. Rev 2015 , 54 , 9–21. [ CrossRef ] 36 Roh, S.; Tae, S.; Baek, C.; Shin, S.; Lee, J.; Lee, J.; An, J. The development of object-oriented building life cycle CO 2 assessment system (LOCAS) Archit. Inst. Korea 2012 , 28 , 101–108 37 Baek, C.; Park, S.H.; Suzuki, M.; Lee, S.H. Life cycle carbon dioxide assessment tool for buildings in the schematic design phase Energy Build 2013 , 61 , 175–187. [ CrossRef ] 38 Tae, S.; Shin, S. Current work and future trends for sustainable buildings in South Korea Renew. Sustain Energy Rev 2009 , 13 , 1910–1921. [ CrossRef ] 39 ISO ISO 21931-1: Sustainability in Building Construction—Framework for Methods of Assessment of the Environmental Performance of Construction Works—Part 1: Buildings ; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010 40 Sharma, A.; Saxena, A.; Sethi, M.; Shree, V. Life cycle assessment of buildings: A review Renew. Sustain Energy Rev 2011 , 15 , 871–875. [ CrossRef ] 41 Tae, S.; Baek, C.; Shin, S. Life cycle CO 2 evaluation on reinforced concrete structures with high-strength concrete Environ. Impact Assess. Rev 2011 , 31 , 253–260. [ CrossRef ] 42 Tae, S.; Shin, S.; Woo, J.; Roh, S. The development of apartment house life cycle CO 2 simple assessment system using standard apartment houses of South Korea Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev 2011 , 15 , 1454–1467 [ CrossRef ] 43 Kim, J.; Koo, C.; Kim, C.; Hong, T.; Park, H. Integrated CO 2 , cost, and schedule management system for building construction projects using the earned value management theory J. Clean. Prod 2015 , 103 , 275–285 [ CrossRef ] 44 Huedo, P.; Mulet, E.; Lopez-Mesa, B. A model for the sustainable selection of building envelope assemblies Environ. Impact Assess. Rev 2016 , 57 , 63–77. [ CrossRef ] 45 Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI). Korea Carbon Emission Factor. 2010 Available online: http://www.edp.or.kr/lci/co 2.asp (accessed on 8 May 2016). (In Korean) 46 Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI). Korea Life Cycle Inventory Database. 2004 Available online: http://www.edp.or.kr/lci/lci_db.asp (accessed on 8 May 2016). (In Korean) 47 Park, J.; Tae, S.; Kim, T. Life cycle CO 2 assessment of concrete by compressive strength on construction site in Korea Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev 2012 , 16 , 2490–2496. [ CrossRef ] 48 Kim, T.; Tae, S.; Roh, S. Assessment of the CO 2 emission and cost reduction performance of a low-carbon-emission concrete mix design using an optimal mix design system Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev 2013 , 25 , 729–741. [ CrossRef ] 49 Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE): South Korea 2014 Energy Consumption Survey ; Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy: Sejong, Korea, 2015. (In Korean) 50 Korea Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO). South Korea Building Energy Efficiency Rating System. 2010. Available online: http://www.kemco.or.kr/building/v 2/buil_cert/buil_cert_4_1.asp (accessed on 8 May 2016). (In Korean) 51 IPCC IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories ; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006 52 Korea Power Exchange (KPX). CO 2 Emissions Factors for Electricity. 2013. Available online: http://www. kpx.or.kr/KOREAN/htdocs/popup/pop_1224.html (accessed on 8 May 2016). (In Korean)

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Eng, Basel, Open, Civil, Lang]

Sustainability 2016 , 8 , 567 22 of 22 53 Korea District Heating Corporation (KDHC). CO 2 Emissions Factors for District Heating 2013 Available online: http://www.kdhc.co.kr/content.do?sgrp=S 10&siteCmsCd=CM 3650&topCmsCd= CM 3655&cmsCd=CM 4018&pnum=1&cnum=9 (accessed on 8 May 2016). (In Korean) 54 Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology (KICT) Standard Estimating System of the Construction Work ; Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology: Goyang, Korea, 2014 (In Korean) 55 Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology (KICT) Standard of Estimate for Construction ; Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology: Goyang, Korea, 2014. (In Korean) 56 Korea Legislation Research Institute (KLRI). Korea Corporate Tax Act: Korea Ministry of Strategy and Finance Available online: http://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?hseq=28577&lang=ENG (accessed on 8 May 2016) © 2016 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Other Environmental Sciences Concepts:

[back to top]

Discover the significance of concepts within the article: ‘Building Simplified Life Cycle CO2 Emissions Assessment Tool (B‐SCAT) to...’. Further sources in the context of Environmental Sciences might help you critically compare this page with similair documents:

Building, Life cycle, Comparative analysis, Building site, Residential building, Building material, Transportation, Energy source, South Korea, Sustainable development, Assessment criteria, Assessment tool, Environmental performance, Assessment method, Error rate, Energy consumption, End of life stage, Waste material, Structural material, Basic information, Assessment procedure, Assessment results, Construction process, Landfill, High Strength Concrete, Transportation process, CO 2 emission, Floor area ratio, Annual energy consumption, Building industry, Exterior wall, Building Design, Landfill gas, Office building, Demolition, Estimation model, Heating system, Building component, Diesel, Building Elements, Waste Building Materials, Low-Carbon Building, Interior material, Reduction rate, Local heating, Unit area.