Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment (H-LCA) for Buildings and Construction Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abdulrahman Bakindi; Aoife Houlihan Wiberg; Jonathan Norman; Ellie Marsh; Stephen Allen

doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112630

Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment (H-LCA) for Buildings and Construction Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abdulrahman Bakindi, Aoife Houlihan Wiberg, Jonathan Norman, Ellie Marsh, Stephen Allen

Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

20 Citations (SciVal)

Abstract

The construction and building sectors are crucial in combating climate change due to their significant embodied and whole-life carbon emissions. With the population and building floor area projected to rise significantly by 2050, robust assessments are needed to identify eco-friendly solutions. Life cycle assessment (LCA), particularly process-based (P-LCA) and input-output (I-O LCA) methods, is extensively used for assessing environmental sustainability. However, both approaches have drawbacks. Hybrid life cycle assessment (H-LCA) addresses these drawbacks by combining the strengths of both methods. This paper presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current status of H-LCA in the context of buildings and construction materials. It explores the methodologies and approaches currently employed in H-LCA, the current challenges and opportunities, and future directions. A comprehensive search across four research databases identified 46 studies. The review reveals that the adoption of H-LCA within the building and construction sectors has been slow but is gradually increasing. There is a noticeable lack of methodological clarity, with varied sources, databases and tools used in these studies, as well as a preference for national I-O (IO) tables over Multi-Regional Input-Output (MRIO) tables. Furthermore, the review finds that when addressing issues in their H-LCA models, such as correcting double counting, researchers use various strategies and methods suited to their particular goals, aims, and datasets. These models differ greatly, making a straight comparison between them difficult. The review combines the results of these papers and conducts a comparative analysis. The analysis shows that H-LCA generally yields higher values than P-LCA and I-O LCA methods in providing comprehensive results. Finally, this paper identifies several limitations in current H-LCA practices and concludes by discussing potential solutions to address them.

Original language	English
Article number	112630
Journal	Building and Environment
Volume	272
Issue number	112630
Early online date	27 Jan 2025
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112630
Publication status	Published - 15 Mar 2025

Data Availability Statement

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the High Value Manufacturing Catapult (HMVC) and the teams from the University of Leeds and the University of Bath for their valuable collaboration on the disaggregation report, which shaped the disaggregation section of this paper.

Funding

This work was supported by the EPSRC Quantum Technologies Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP) [Grant Number EP/W524712/1 ]. Dr. Jonathan Norman's contribution was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number EP/Y010078/1 ] as part of the Energy Demand Research Centre.

Funders	Funder number
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council	EP/W524712/1
Economic and Social Research Council	EP/Y010078/1

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 7 Affordable and Clean Energy
SDG 12 Responsible Consumption and Production
SDG 13 Climate Action

Keywords

Buildings
Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment (H-LCA)
Input-Output LCA (I-O LCA)
Literature Review
Process-Based LCA (P-LCA)
Sustainability

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Environmental Engineering
Civil and Structural Engineering
Geography, Planning and Development
Building and Construction

Access to Document

10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112630Licence: CC BY

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013232500112X#bib0077Licence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{b5bf54b094fa493ba31bd59b46ff3c7a,

title = "Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment (H-LCA) for Buildings and Construction Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis",

abstract = "The construction and building sectors are crucial in combating climate change due to their significant embodied and whole-life carbon emissions. With the population and building floor area projected to rise significantly by 2050, robust assessments are needed to identify eco-friendly solutions. Life cycle assessment (LCA), particularly process-based (P-LCA) and input-output (I-O LCA) methods, is extensively used for assessing environmental sustainability. However, both approaches have drawbacks. Hybrid life cycle assessment (H-LCA) addresses these drawbacks by combining the strengths of both methods. This paper presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current status of H-LCA in the context of buildings and construction materials. It explores the methodologies and approaches currently employed in H-LCA, the current challenges and opportunities, and future directions. A comprehensive search across four research databases identified 46 studies. The review reveals that the adoption of H-LCA within the building and construction sectors has been slow but is gradually increasing. There is a noticeable lack of methodological clarity, with varied sources, databases and tools used in these studies, as well as a preference for national I-O (IO) tables over Multi-Regional Input-Output (MRIO) tables. Furthermore, the review finds that when addressing issues in their H-LCA models, such as correcting double counting, researchers use various strategies and methods suited to their particular goals, aims, and datasets. These models differ greatly, making a straight comparison between them difficult. The review combines the results of these papers and conducts a comparative analysis. The analysis shows that H-LCA generally yields higher values than P-LCA and I-O LCA methods in providing comprehensive results. Finally, this paper identifies several limitations in current H-LCA practices and concludes by discussing potential solutions to address them.",

keywords = "Buildings, Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment (H-LCA), Input-Output LCA (I-O LCA), Literature Review, Process-Based LCA (P-LCA), Sustainability",

author = "Abdulrahman Bakindi and \{Houlihan Wiberg\}, Aoife and Jonathan Norman and Ellie Marsh and Stephen Allen",

year = "2025",

month = mar,

day = "15",

doi = "10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112630",

language = "English",

volume = "272",

journal = "Building and Environment",

issn = "0360-1323",

publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",

number = "112630",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment (H-LCA) for Buildings and Construction Materials

T2 - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AU - Bakindi, Abdulrahman

AU - Houlihan Wiberg, Aoife

AU - Norman, Jonathan

AU - Marsh, Ellie

AU - Allen, Stephen

PY - 2025/3/15

Y1 - 2025/3/15

N2 - The construction and building sectors are crucial in combating climate change due to their significant embodied and whole-life carbon emissions. With the population and building floor area projected to rise significantly by 2050, robust assessments are needed to identify eco-friendly solutions. Life cycle assessment (LCA), particularly process-based (P-LCA) and input-output (I-O LCA) methods, is extensively used for assessing environmental sustainability. However, both approaches have drawbacks. Hybrid life cycle assessment (H-LCA) addresses these drawbacks by combining the strengths of both methods. This paper presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current status of H-LCA in the context of buildings and construction materials. It explores the methodologies and approaches currently employed in H-LCA, the current challenges and opportunities, and future directions. A comprehensive search across four research databases identified 46 studies. The review reveals that the adoption of H-LCA within the building and construction sectors has been slow but is gradually increasing. There is a noticeable lack of methodological clarity, with varied sources, databases and tools used in these studies, as well as a preference for national I-O (IO) tables over Multi-Regional Input-Output (MRIO) tables. Furthermore, the review finds that when addressing issues in their H-LCA models, such as correcting double counting, researchers use various strategies and methods suited to their particular goals, aims, and datasets. These models differ greatly, making a straight comparison between them difficult. The review combines the results of these papers and conducts a comparative analysis. The analysis shows that H-LCA generally yields higher values than P-LCA and I-O LCA methods in providing comprehensive results. Finally, this paper identifies several limitations in current H-LCA practices and concludes by discussing potential solutions to address them.

AB - The construction and building sectors are crucial in combating climate change due to their significant embodied and whole-life carbon emissions. With the population and building floor area projected to rise significantly by 2050, robust assessments are needed to identify eco-friendly solutions. Life cycle assessment (LCA), particularly process-based (P-LCA) and input-output (I-O LCA) methods, is extensively used for assessing environmental sustainability. However, both approaches have drawbacks. Hybrid life cycle assessment (H-LCA) addresses these drawbacks by combining the strengths of both methods. This paper presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current status of H-LCA in the context of buildings and construction materials. It explores the methodologies and approaches currently employed in H-LCA, the current challenges and opportunities, and future directions. A comprehensive search across four research databases identified 46 studies. The review reveals that the adoption of H-LCA within the building and construction sectors has been slow but is gradually increasing. There is a noticeable lack of methodological clarity, with varied sources, databases and tools used in these studies, as well as a preference for national I-O (IO) tables over Multi-Regional Input-Output (MRIO) tables. Furthermore, the review finds that when addressing issues in their H-LCA models, such as correcting double counting, researchers use various strategies and methods suited to their particular goals, aims, and datasets. These models differ greatly, making a straight comparison between them difficult. The review combines the results of these papers and conducts a comparative analysis. The analysis shows that H-LCA generally yields higher values than P-LCA and I-O LCA methods in providing comprehensive results. Finally, this paper identifies several limitations in current H-LCA practices and concludes by discussing potential solutions to address them.

KW - Buildings

KW - Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment (H-LCA)

KW - Input-Output LCA (I-O LCA)

KW - Literature Review

KW - Process-Based LCA (P-LCA)

KW - Sustainability

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85217405476

U2 - 10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112630

DO - 10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112630

M3 - Review article

SN - 0360-1323

VL - 272

JO - Building and Environment

JF - Building and Environment

IS - 112630

M1 - 112630

ER -

Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment (H-LCA) for Buildings and Construction Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Data Availability Statement

Acknowledgements

Funding

UN SDGs

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this