Search

This paper explores the environmental impacts of retaining or replacing buildings by extending the consequential replacement framework (CRF) for life-cycle assessment (LCA) from individual buildings towards the urban scale. It addresses a gap in previous studies by examining the broader consequences of building-level retention or replacement decisions in the built environment, namely greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from associated infrastructure construction. The case study, which is located in Finland, investigates alternative ways to densify a growing city, some of which can be achieved within the urban structure, while others require greenfield construction elsewhere in the city. The results reveal that refurbishing and extending already existing buildings is worthwhile in terms of GHG emissions, even if some of the additional floor area targeted in densification were to be built on a greenfield site. After 50 years, the accumulated GHG emissions of scenarios that develop existing buildings are 0.2–12% less than those from replacement scenarios, depending on whether the targeted densification is minor or major and the amount of infrastructure construction involved. This is primarily due to the 11–35% smaller upfront embodied GHG emissions of refurbishment compared with new construction—which 50 years do not offset. Policy relevance This paper reinforces the notion from previous research that developing the existing building stock holds major emission-savings potential, even more so than replacement with energy-efficient new build. It highlights the potential contribution of existing building stocks in low-emission city development, even in growing city contexts. The case study results challenge the common belief in urban planning that if replacement involves densification, it must be a more low-emission alternative than retention, and conversely, if retention leads to greenfield construction, it must be higher in emissions than replacement. Low-emission urban planning should base its conclusions on urban LCA. This paper introduces an infrastructure-extended CRF that accounts for building retention and replacement scenarios, ensuring methodological robustness. The approach is essential for policymakers to base their decisions on evidence and prioritise low-emission development alternatives. Which policymakers hold power over such decisions and which instruments are suitable to pursue these goals depend on the context.

Is it more environmentally friendly to replace an existing building with a new one or to renovate the existing property? This paper addresses how to frame and evaluate this question. Although several previous studies exist, their methods lack a harmonised set of practice. A new framework is introduced that adopts the concept of consequential replacement framework (CRF) for life cycle assessment (LCA) which had previously been applied to vehicles. The application of the CRF to buildings is demonstrated with case studies on school buildings in Finland. Three alternative cases are examined: the refurbishment of a 1950s school; extending it with an annex; and demolition and replacement with a new concrete or timber building. As the European environmental impact regulation of buildings pertains to CO2 emissions, the paper also focuses on CO2. The case studies demonstrate that refurbishment in Finland is a more climate-friendly alternative to demolition and new build. The studied new buildings’ better energy efficiency is set off for decades by the carbon spike caused by the embodied CO2 in their materials. The CRF is shown to be a methodologically sound, easily approachable framework for evaluating immediate environmental consequences of decision-makers’ retention or replacement choices, suitable to different contexts. Policy relevance As the global CO2 budget is running out, the need to combat the escalation of the climate emergency is imminent. Decades-long payback times for embodied CO2 investments in new replacement buildings, as in the paper’s case studies, are not helpful in this effort. The introduced framework helps to uncover the climate change mitigation potential in building preservation, which is presently poorly understood and considered in policymaking. The new framework provides a useful decision support tool and evidence for both policymakers and planners. Current policy initiatives in Europe focus on CO2 regulation for new build and renovation. However, replacement situations are not yet regulated. In contexts where renovation clearly proves to be more climate friendly (as validated by this method), policymakers should recognise the greenhouse gas-mitigation potential in building retention and create policies to encourage renovation over new build.