Sustainable design and construction have gained increasing research interest, and reduction of carbon from building construction has become the main focus of environmental strategies in Malaysia. This study uses life cycle assessment and life cycle inventory analysis frameworks to estimate the amount of carbon footprint expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent tons (CO2e) produced by manufacturing prefabricated Industrialized Building System sandwich panels and its installation for a five-story hostel in Perlis, Malaysia. Results show that the carbon footprint hotspots were centered on boiler machine operation and cement with 4.52 and 369.04 tons CO2e, respectively. This finding is due to the extensive energy used for steam heating and high engine rating for the boiler. However, for cement, the carbon footprint hotspots are caused by the large quantity of cement applied in shotcrete mixture and its high extraction and production CO2 emission values. The overall onsite materials generated 96.36% of the total carbon footprint. These carbon footprint hotspot results constitute a necessary base for the Malaysian government in accomplishing an adequate dimensioning of carbon emissions in the building sector.

Topics
Energy use and applications, Environmental economics, Composite materials, Cement, Chemical elements, Chemical compounds, Life cycle analysis
1.
R. J.
 
Cole
,
Build. Environ.
 
335
–
348
. (
1998
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(98)00020-1
Google Scholar
 
2.
T.
 
Kenny
 and
N. F.
 
Gray
,
Environ. Impact Assess.
 
1
–
6
. (
2009
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2008.06.001
Google Scholar
 
3.
CIDB
,
Roadmap 2003-2010.
(
2003
).
4.
F.
 
Ismail
,
H. E. A.
 
Baharuddin
 and
M. A.
 
Marhani
,
Procd. Soc. Behv.
 
43
–
50
. (
2013
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.336
Google Scholar
 
5.
N. G.
 
Blismas
,
M.
 
Pendlebury
,
A.
 
Gibb
 and
C.
 
Pasquire
,
Archit. Eng. Des. Manage.
 
153
–
162
. (
2005
).
Google Scholar
 
6.
Y.
 
Luo
,
R.
 
Riley
,
M. J.
 
Horman
 and
G. O.
 
Kremer
, “
Decision support methodology for prefabrication decisions on green building projects
,”
Symposium on Sustainability and Value through Construction Procurement
(
2008
).
Google Scholar
 
7.
J.
 
Barrett
 and
T.
 
Wiedmann
,
A Comparative Carbon Footprint Analysis of On-Site Construction and an Off-Site Manufactured House
(
Stockholm Environment Institute
,
United Kingdom
,
2007
), pp.
1
–
14
.
Google Scholar
 
8.
J.
 
Monahan
 and
J. C.
 
Powell
,
Energ. Buildings
 
179
–
188
. (
2011
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.09.005
Google Scholar
 
9.
L.
 
Aye
,
T.
 
Ngo
,
R. H.
 
Crawford
,
R.
 
Gammampila
 and
P.
 
Mendis
,
Energ. Buildings
 
159
–
168
. (
2012
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.11.049
Google Scholar
 
10.
ISO, 14040: “
Environmental management of life cycle assessment principles and framework
”, (
2006
).
11.
N.
 
Razali
,
A.
 
Ayob
,
M. F. M.
 
Zaki
,
S.
 
Alias
 and
S. Y.
 
Yusuf
, “
Carbon footprint assessment of machinery usage: case study on hostel construction in Perlis
,” in
International Conference on Sustainable Energy & Environmental Sciences (SEES). Proceedings
. (
Global Science and Technology Forum
,
Singapore
,
2016
). pp.
18
–
22
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
12.
G.
 
Hammond
 and
C.
 
Jones
,
Inventory of carbon and energy
(
University of Bath
,
United Kingdom
,
2011
), pp.
1
–
63
.
Google Scholar
 
13.
N.
 
Hill
,
H.
 
Walker
,
S.
 
Choudrie
 and
K.
 
James
,
Guidelines to DEFRA/DECC’s GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting
.
Methodology Paper for Emission Factors
(
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
,
London
,
2012
), pp.
1
–
85
.
14.
EPD and EMSD
,
Guidelines to Account for and Report on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals for Buildings (Commercial, Residential or Institutional Purposes) in Hong Kong
(
2008
), pp.
1
–
46
15.
A. S.
 
Tảrtaro
,
T. M.
 
Mata
,
A. A.
 
Martins
 and
J. C. G. E.
 
da Silva
,
J. Clean Prod.
 
925
–
932
. (
2017
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.028
Google Scholar
 
16.
C. C. S.
 
Chan
,
D.
 
Thorpe
 and
M.
 
Islam
, “
An evaluation carbon footprint in fly ash based geopolymer cement and ordinary Portland cement manufacture
,” in
Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM)
,
IEEE International Conference
, (
2015
), pp.
254
–
259
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
17.
L. K.
 
Turner
 and
F. G.
 
Collins
,
Constr. Build. Mater.
 
125
–
130
. (
2013
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.023
Google Scholar
 
18.
C.
 
Meyer
,
Cement Concrete Comp.
 
601
–
605
. (
2009
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2008.12.010
Google Scholar
 
19.
W. M. S.
 
Omar
,
J. H.
 
Doh
,
K.
 
Panuwatwanich
 and
D.
 
Miller
,
Sustain. Cities Soc.
 
10
,
101
–
111
. (
2014
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2013.06.002
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
20.
C.
 
Mao
,
Q.
 
Shen
,
L.
 
Shen
 and
L.
 
Tang
,
Energ. Buildings
 
165
–
176
. (
2013
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.033
Google Scholar
 
21.
T. Jia
 
Wen
,
H. Chin
 
Siong
 and
Z. Z.
 
Noor
,
Energ. Buildings
 
295
–
302
. (
2015
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.12.002
Google Scholar
 
22.
K.
 
Na
,
S.
 
Biswas
,
W.
 
Robertson
,
K.
 
Sahay
,
R.
 
Okamoto
 and
A.
 
Mitchell
,
Atmos. Environ.
 
307
–
314
. (
2015
).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.02.054
Google Scholar
 
23.
M.
 
Sandanayake
,
G.
 
Zhang
,
S.
 
Setunge
 and
C. M.
 
Thomas
, “
Environmental emissions of construction equipment usage in pile foundation construction process-a case study
,” in
Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate
. (
Melbourne
,
Australia
,
2015
). pp.
327
–
339
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2017 Author(s).
2017
Author(s)
You do not currently have access to this content.