Livscykelbaserad miljövärdering av en ny kontorsbyggnad
En jämförande studie mellan två analysmetoder
This Master?s Thesis aims to illustrate in what ways the two Swedish environmental assessment tools, the Environmental Load Profile and EcoEffect differ and if performed valuations gives different results and environmental goals.The built urban environment causes about half the environmental loading in Sweden. The society?s ambition towards sustainable development has resulted in demands reducing the environmental load. One way to accomplish this change is with the assistance of tools for environmental assessment of the built environment. There are a number of tools available on the market today: checklists, criteria systems and life cycle assessment. The tools are approaching the life cycle assessments way to analyse and valuate environmental questions. There are two existing tools with life cycle perspective developed in Sweden, the Environmental Load Profile and EcoEffect. These two differ in a number of aspects. The most significant distinctions are that the Environmental Load Profile is developed for city districts and EcoEffect for properties. The tools measure different environmental impact categories and there are differences in the input data. The tools are based on different lifecycle inventory data for building materials and for technical supplies. EcoEffect includes an additional step of aggregation than the Environmental Load Profile, called weighting. In contrast to EcoEffect incorporated in the Environmental Load Profile, is a method for calculating the energy balance of the building. The tools present their results in different ways with different units.The greatest difficulty in using the tools is to find necessary input data. To simplify this, an input data template for the user with clear instructions, could be established. The property developer could further establish a list, including input data for both methods. Another difficulty is to find a representative reference, which gives a fair comparison. It is difficult to compare the outcome of the methods, since there are many differences in the structure and way of presentation. The tools generate different outcomes. The Environmental Load Profile gives better results than EcoEffect by comparing with a reference. However comparing at a more detailed level, between g CO2-equivalents, EcoEffect gives better results for energy but not for material. To investigate why there are differences in the results another valuation has been made, with the same inputdata and reference. Even these results were different. While the same input data and reference are used couldn´t that be the reason. Concerning the material one explanation could be that the tools have different life cycle inventory data and concerning the energy one explanation could be the differences in data for technical supplies. To investigate how much the choice of technical supplies means, an additional valuation has been made, with the same input data and data for technical suppliy. Even this valuation gave different results, why input data and data for technical supply are eliminated as sources of error for energy. Differences in the programs calculation are not further investigated.Both the Environmental Load Profile and EcoEffect are useful to assist in identifying significant environmental aspects. They give indications on where measures should be taken for the specific property or area. The indications can be used for formulation of environmental goals. The tools can also be used to follow up these environmental goals. EcoEffect has, in contrast to the Environmental Load Profile, a well developed working sheet where the environmental goals can be formulated and followed up.