Building and Environment 93 (2015) 165e178

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Critical review of life cycle assessment (LCA) for the built environment
at the neighborhood scale
Marc Lotteau a, b, *, Philippe Loubet a, c, Maxime Pousse b, Emmanuel Dufrasnes b, d,
Guido Sonnemann a, e
a
Univeristy of Bordeaux, ISM, UMR 5255, 351 Cours de la Lib
eration, F-33400 Talence, France
b
Nobatek, 67 rue de Mirambeau, F-64600 Anglet, France
c
INP Bordeaux, ISM, UMR 5255, 351 Cours de la Lib
eration, F-33400 Talence, France
d
ENSAS, 6-8 boulevard du Pr
esident Wilson, F-67068 Strasbourg, France
e
CNRS, ISM, UMR 5255, 351 Cours de la Lib
eration, F-33400 Talence, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The built environment is recognized as a major hotspot of resource use and environmental impacts. Life
Received 22 April 2015 cycle assessment (LCA) has been increasingly used to assess the environmental impacts of construction
Received in revised form products and buildings during the last 25 years. A new trend stems in the application of LCA to larger
23 June 2015
systems such as urban islets or neighborhoods. This review aims at compiling all papers related to LCA of
Accepted 26 June 2015
the built environment at the neighborhood scale. A focus is carried out on 21 existing case studies which
Available online 2 July 2015
are analyzed according to criteria derived from the four phases of LCA international standards. It sums up
current practices in terms of goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory (LCI) and life cycle impact
Keywords:
Life cycle assessment (LCA)
assessment (LCIA). The results show that the case studies pursue different goals. They are either con-
Neighborhood sustainability assessment ducted on existing or model neighborhoods with an aim at building knowledge to feed urban policy
(NSA) making. Or they are conducted on actual urban development projects for eco-design purpose. Studies are
Critical review based on different scopes, resulting in the selection of different functional units and system boundaries.
Neighborhood scale A comparison of data collection strategies is provided as well as a comparison of LCIA results for cu-
District scale mulative energy demand and greenhouse gases emissions. Methodological challenges and research
needs in the field of application of LCA to neighborhood scale assessment are identified, such as the
definition of the functional unit and the need for contextualization methodologies aligned with data
availability at the design stages of a neighborhood development project.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction is addressed through a wide range of methodologies at both the

More than fifty percent of the world population (2011) lives in
urban areas [1] and the built environment, referring to the building
and transportation sectors, is a major hotspot of resource use and
environmental impacts. For instance it accounts for 62% of global
final energy consumption (2009) [2] and 55% of greenhouse gas
emissions (2004) [3]. In industrialized countries, buildings are
responsible for 42% of the final energy consumption, 35% of
greenhouse gas emissions and more than 50% of all extracted ma-
terials [4].
The analysis of environmental impacts of the built environment
* Corresponding author. Nobatek, 67 rue de Mirambeau, F-64600 Anglet, France.
E-mail address: mlotteau@nobatek.com (M. Lotteau).
individual building scale and the city scale.
At the individual building scale, among various methodologies
(e.g. statistical models, simulation) life cycle assessment (LCA) is
the clearly accepted scientific methodology for quantitative
assessment of buildings over their entire lifespan accounting for
upstream impacts [5]. Several reviews have been conducted on LCA
in the construction industry [6e9]. These reviews classify LCA
studies according to their scale of analysis, from LCA of building
materials and component combinations to LCA of the whole con-
struction process [6]. They all point out the fact that case studies
found in literature are difficult to compare because of their specific
properties like building type, climate, comfort requirements, local
regulations, etc. Nevertheless trends can be identified such as the
dominance of the use phase (especially due to energy consumption
for heating and cooling) and the increase of the share and absolute

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.06.029
0360-1323/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
166 M. Lotteau et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 165e178
value of embodied energy for low-energy buildings. Regarding
methodological aspects, most of LCA of buildings are process-based
LCA and are life cycle energy assessment (LCEA), meaning that they
focus on energy related issues, rather than full LCA (addressing a
broader range of environmental impacts) [8].
At the city scale, assessment methodologies for environmental
impacts quantification are numerous as well. Baynes et al. [10]
examine general approaches under three categories;
consumption-based approaches (CBA), metabolism-based ap-
proaches (MBA) and complex systems approaches. CBA capture
economy-wide impacts as a function of urban consumption and
lifestyles. The most commonly used CBA method is environmen-
tally extended inputeoutput analysis (EE-IOA) capable of assessing
direct and indirect water, and energy use, ecological footprinting
and most notably greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting. MBA record
the material, water, waste and energy flows of an urbanized area.
Methods are essentially an urban materials and energy flow anal-
ysis (MEFA). MBA methods increasingly account for indirect or
cross-boundary impacts of production and consumption. Complex
systems approaches attribute causes and effects through quanti-
fying relationships and feedbacks throughout the urban system.
These approaches are more recently developed and include at-
tempts at modeling the underlying dynamics of cities at various
scales. According to Anderson et al. [5] LCA is again a dominant
method for urban level analysis and is complementary with CBA
and MBA approaches. Indeed hybrid LCA techniques appear as a
promising direction for realizing an optimum combination of both
CBA and MBA methods [10]. In their review of existing tools and
methods to assess the environmental impacts of a territory, Loiseau
et al. [11] studied in detail a set of methods that are based on the
study of material and energy flows (i.e. Human and Environmental
Risk Assessment, Ecological Footprint, Material and Energy Flow
Analysis, Exergy, Emergy and LCA). The authors show that LCA
provides a relevant framework and is the only method which can
avoid burden shifting between life cycle stages, environmental
impacts and territories.
There is a growing interest for the neighborhood scale in the
field of urban sustainability assessment. It is a typical operational
scale for urban development projects and integrates key levers for
urban eco-design. Indeed, this change of scale is driven by the need
to address district scale levers to design buildings and neighbor-
hoods of higher environmental performance and to address key
issues such as bioclimatic design, shared equipment (e.g. district
heating), urban density or mobility issues. For instance, decisions
made at the settlement level (orientation, compactness, urban
density) largely affect heating/cooling loads, a major contributor to
the energy balance of an urban area. Oliver-Sol a et al. [12] state that
it seems more likely that the environmental and energy concerns
that nowadays focus mainly on buildings will soon be transferred to
neighborhood planning.
As an answer to this growing interest for sustainability inves-
tigation and planning at the neighborhood scale, a new trend stems
in the application of LCA to neighborhood projects. Several papers
related to the LCA of neighborhoods have already been published
but existing literature is still scarce and heterogeneous. This review
aims at compiling all papers related to this topic. A focus is carried
out on 21 existing case studies (from 14 papers) which are analyzed
according to criteria derived from the four phases of LCA interna-
tional standards. It sums up current practices in terms of goal and
scope definition, life cycle inventory (LCI) and life cycle impact
assessment (LCIA) methodological choices, as well as main results.
This analysis shows that whereas all studies aim at providing
quantitative information to policy makers or designers, they are
based on different scopes and focus on different issues, resulting in
various functional units and system boundaries.
A neighborhood, being a complex, multifunctional, long-lasting
and dynamic system, raises specific issues regarding for example
the definition of the functional unit or the consideration of tem-
poral aspects in LCA. This review also summarizes the main
methodological challenges for this new field of application and
associated research opportunities.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Selection of LCA papers dealing with the built environment at
the neighborhood scale
The present review aims at compiling papers presenting an in-
tegrated assessment of the built environment at the neighborhood
scale using LCA approaches. The built environment is the summa-
tion of all human-made structures, infrastructure and trans-
portation systems [5]. For this review, we propose to differentiate
four fields of the built environment that are derived from Popovici
(2006) [13]; buildings, open spaces (roads, green spaces), networks
(water, telecommunications, sewage, heating distribution, elec-
tricity distribution) and mobility. We chose to select case studies
dealing with at least two fields of the built environment. Consid-
ering the importance of buildings on environmental burdens as
well as the fact that building LCA literature has already been widely
investigated, we also propose to classify the papers according to the
scale of analysis applied to buildings and we add to our selection,
papers that address buildings only but with an analysis performed
at the neighborhood scale (and not at the individual building scale
to be then extrapolated at the neighborhood scale). Eventually the
present review compiled (i) papers including several fields of the
built environment and (ii) papers addressing buildings only but
with an analysis performed at the neighborhood scale.
2.2. Analysis grid of LCA papers
The case studies analysis follows the four steps of LCA according
to ISO [14]: (phase 1) definition of goal and scope, (phase 2) life
cycle inventory (LCI), (phase 3) life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
and (phase 4) interpretation of the results. For each phase, a set of
criteria has been selected from the ISO and ILCD guidelines [15].
The set of criteria is detailed below and a summary is provided in
Table 1.
2.2.1. Criteria for LCA phase 1 e goal and scope
The studies' goals are compared according to their intended
applications and the reasons for carrying out the studies. A focus is
placed on whether the studies are “neighborhood development
sustainability studies” aiming at producing specific knowledge for a
particular urban development project or “urban sustainability
studies” aiming at producing general knowledge for urban sus-
tainability policy making. The analysis of the scope definition in-
cludes (i) the choice of functional unit (FU); (ii) key information
about the system (geographic location, number of inhabitants,
area); (iii) the definition of system boundaries; and (iv) the life
cycle steps considered. Concerning the boundaries, the analysis
investigates whether or not the case studies include the different
fields of the built environment as defined in Section 2.1: buildings
(B), open spaces (OS), networks (N) and mobility (M). Concerning
the life cycle step, the inclusion of Construction (raw materials
extraction, manufacturing, buildings and infrastructures construc-
tion), Operation (operation and maintenance), and Deconstruction
(end of life) is reviewed.
2.2.2. Criteria for LCA phase 2 e life cycle inventory
The LCI is the data collection part of LCA. It consists of detailed
 M. Lotteau et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 165e178
Table 1
Description of criteria taken into account within the review.
LCA phase Qualitative criteria
Phase 1 e Goal and scope definition - Goal
- System boundaries
- Life cycle steps considered
Phase 2 e LCI - Source of foreground data
- Source of background data
Phase 3 e LCIA - LCIA method selected
- Impacts and damages taken into account
- Normalization (yes/no?)
- Weighting (yes/no?)
Phase 4 e interpretation - Mono or multi-criteria
- Sensitivity check
tracking of all the flows in and out of the system, including raw
resources or materials, energy by type, water, and emissions to air,
water and land by specific substance.
The analyzed system is typically differentiated into the pro-
cesses of the foreground system and those of the background sys-
tem [15]. The foreground system is defined as those processes of
the system that are under control of the decision maker involved in
the study [16]. The background system comprises those processes
that are operated as part of the system but that are not under direct
control of decisions analyzed in the study.
There are two main approaches to data collection: process-
based LCA and Input-Output LCA (IO-LCA). Process-based LCA is a
bottom-up process analysis where the system is modelled by
means of its specific information whereas IO-LCA uses economy or
industry sector wide inventory data and break these down in a top-
down process. A third approach, called hybrid-LCA consists in a
combination of the two former approaches.
Two main modelling principles are used in LCA practice that
influence the data required to perform the analysis: attributional
and consequential modelling. Attributional LCA depicts the po-
tential environmental impacts that can be attributed to the
analyzed system over its life cycle, and this system is embedded
into a static technosphere (i.e. the foreground system do not modify
the background system in which it is embedded). Consequential
modelling aims at identifying the consequences that a decision in
the foreground system has for other processes and systems of the
economy, both in the analyzed system's background system and on
other systems. In consequential LCA, the analyzed system is
embedded in a dynamic technosphere [15].
The analysis of the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) phase of reviewed
papers deals with the procedures used to collect foreground and
background data (i.e., source of data) and the completeness of the
inventories.
2.2.3. Criteria for LCA phases 3 and 4 e life cycle impact assessment
and interpretation
According to ISO [17], Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
proceeds through two mandatory steps; (i) selection of impact
categories and classification, and (ii) characterization.
The selection of impact categories and classification consists in
selecting the impact categories which are of relevance to the study,
and assigning the elementary flows from the inventory to these
impact categories according to the substances‘ ability to contribute
to different environmental problems [18]. Impact categories
considered in a LCIA include generally climate change, ozone
depletion, eutrophication, acidification, human toxicity, respiratory
inorganics, ionizing radiation, ecotoxicity, photochemical ozone
formation, land use, water deprivation and resource depletion.
167
Quantitative criteria
- Functional unit
- Geographic location
- Number of inhabitants
- Size
- Lifetime or period of analysis
- Primary energy consumption data
- Climate change impact data
- Contribution analysis, identification of hotspots
The characterization step consists in converting the emissions
and resources that are assigned to each of these impact categories
into indicators using impact assessment models [18], also called
characterization models or LCIA methodologies. These models aim
to connect, each LCI to its potential environmental impacts or
damages thanks to characterization factors [19]. A characterization
factor is a substance-specific factor for expressing the impact from
the particular elementary flow in terms of the common unit of the
category indicator [18]. These characterization factors are based on
environmental mechanisms that link (man-made) interventions to
a set of areas of protection. The end of the environmental mecha-
nism is called the endpoint. A point positioned halfway along the
environmental mechanism can be chosen as an indicator, often
referred to as the midpoint [20]. Thus there are different types of
impact indicators; (i) inventory indicators that are direct LCI results,
(ii) midpoint and endpoint indicators that are assessed through
characterization models.
The criteria used for analyzing the LCIA phase of the case studies
include the chosen LCIA methodology, the list of selected impact
and damage categories and the presence or absence of normaliza-
tion and weighting, which are optional elements. Specific LCIA
results are collected and compared among the studies for relevant
and available impact categories, i.e., primary energy consumption
(PEC) and climate change (CC).
3. Results
Following the selection process we came to a corpus of 14 pa-
pers accounting for 21 case studies. The key points of analysis of the
reviewed papers are summarized in Table 2.
3.1. Phase 1: goal and scope definition
3.1.1. Goal of the studies
Reviewed papers are almost equally split in two main types of
studies that we propose to name “neighborhood development
sustainability studies” and “urban sustainability studies”. “Neigh-
borhood development sustainability studies” are LCA of real
neighborhood development or renovation projects that are con-
ducted either for decision-support or eco-design. On one hand,
decision-support studies are conducted at an early stage of the
development of a project and aim at assessing its environmental
impacts in order to define the project major orientations. For
instance, in order to provide decision-support for urban planning
Riera Pe
rez and Rey [21] assessed two densification scenarios for an
existing neighborhood to investigate the dynamism between sus-
tainability and local urban planning regulations that determine
densification opportunities. On the other hand eco-design studies
 168
Table 2
Key points of analysis of reviewed papers.

Reference Country City/Region Case study Scenarios Size (km2) Type of Number of inhabitants Residential FU Boundaries LC steps
per cases neighborhood and jobs density
(inhab./km2)

Stephan et al., 2013 Australia Melbourne 1 21 1.4 100% residential 700 inhab. 500 - km2 neighborhood - B - Cons.
- inhabitant - OS (roads) - Op.
- N (power lines, water
distribution, gas distribution,
sewage)
- M (passenger car, train)
Nichols and USA Austin 4 1 13.1 91% residential 4865 inhab. 370 - inhabitant - B - Cons.
Kockelman, 2014 1.7 91% residential 3394 inhab. 2040 - OS (roadways, sidewalks, - Op.
2.2 71% residential 4939 inhab. 2200 driveways, parkings)

M. Lotteau et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 165e178

1.3 90% residential 7728 inhab. 5940 - N (water & wastewater
systems)
- M (passenger car, bus)
Norman et al., 2006 Canada Toronto 2 1 NA 100% residential NA 27 000 - inhabitant - B - Cons.
5700 - m2 of living - OS (roads) - Op.
space/inhabitant - N (utilities)
- M (private automobiles and
public transit)
2
Riera-Perez et al., 2013 Switzerland Lausanne 1 4 0.07 97% residential 1029 inhab. 14 700 - m ERA (Energy - B - Cons.
28 jobs Reference Area*) - M - Op
- Decons.
Davila and Reinhart, USA Cambridge 1 9 NA 100% residential NA NA - m2 floor area - B - Cons.
2013 - Op
- Decons.
Cherqui, 2005 France La Rochelle 1 2 0.02 100% residential 650 inhab. 32 500 - neighborhood - B - Cons.
- Op
- Decons.
Li and Wang, 2009 China Beijing 1 1 4.42 100% residential 152 000 inhab. 34 400 - household - B - Cons.
- M - Op
- Decons.
Trigaux et al., 2014 Belgium NA 1 4 NA 100% residential NA NA - m2 floor area - B - Cons.
- OS (roads) - Op
- Decons.
Forsberg, 2003 Sweden Hammarby 1 2 NA 100% residential NA NA - inhabitant - B - Cons.
€ stad
Sjo 767 apartments - OS (roads, parks) - Op
- N (energy production plants,
sewage treatment plants)
- M
Colombert et al., 2011 France Paris 1 4 0.15 Mixt NA NA - neighborhood - B - Cons.
36 670m2 dwellings - OS (roads, parkings, - Op
40 000m2 offices green spaces) - Decons.
6 500m2 activities - N (water & wastewater,
6000m2 retirement home district heating)
1 000m2 shops
15 000m2 public equip.
 M. Lotteau et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 165e178 169

aim at assessing and comparing several scenarios in terms of

- Decons.

- Decons.

- Decons.

- Decons.
masterplanning [22,23] or other design alternatives in terms of
- Cons.

- Cons.

- Cons.

- Cons.
buildings and public spaces features [24e26]. Furthermore Her-
- Op

- Op

- Op

- Op
fray et al. [27] proposes the LCA of two reference eco-districts in

heating, waste management)

Freiburg, Germany, in order to provide best practice references for
eco-design. “Urban sustainability studies” are LCA of real existing

- N (water, sewage, district

- N (water, sewage, district

- OS (roads, green spaces)

- OS (roads, green spaces)

- OS (roads, green spaces)

neighborhoods or model neighborhoods derived from real exist-
- OS (roads, parkings,

ing buildings [28,29] that aim at studying some key urban sus-
- N (water, sewage,

- N (water, sewage,
district heating)

district heating)

tainability issues and build knowledge to feed urban policy

green spaces)

making. The issue of urban density and urban sprawl is the main
topic of interest [21,28e32].
heating) Among reviewed papers only two papers [21,23] use LCA to
address environmental issues in the frame of a more compre-
- B

- B

- B

- B

hensive sustainability assessment (i.e. addressing the three pillars

of sustainability). Other papers focus on environmental issues and
- neighborhood

- neighborhood

- neighborhood

especially on energy issues. 35% of papers deal with energy and

GHG only [21,28e31].

3.1.2. Scope and functional unit

NA

Reviewed case studies are highly heterogeneous. The neigh-

borhood scale is not well-defined in terms of size and case studies
range from 0.02 km2 to 4.42 km2. Case studies account for
16 400
10 100

different types of neighborhoods. Some cases are a hundred

9340

NA

NA

percent residential neighborhoods with both individual houses

and collective housing, others include offices and shops (mixt
240 occupants in a school
734 occupants in offices
432 occupants in shops

neighborhoods). The range of residential densities is extremely

broad as well, with densities ranging from 370 to 34 400 inhab./
60 000m2 dwellings

km2. Almost all the studies are located in developed countries,

45 000m2 offices
15 000m2 office

600 dwellings

except one in China.

394 inhab.

887 inhab.

The choice of the functional unit (FU) is heterogeneous as well

125 jobs

and most of the time the FU is not clearly defined. Five papers
clearly define the FU as “the neighborhood” as a whole with its
NA

NA

specific features and services provided (such as housing provision

63% residential

39% residential

or job provision) [22,23,25e27]. For instance in Herfray (2011)

[26] the FU is « a neighborhood with 887 inhabitants, 734 em-
ployees in offices, 432 employees in shops and 240 students,
Mixt

Mixt

Mixt

Mixt

located near Paris and considered over a 80 years lifespan”. Other

papers use either per capita or spatial functional units. As for per
capita FUs, three papers define the FU as “the inhabitant”
[28,30,31] and Li and Wang [32] define the FU as “the household”.
0.024
0.039

0.095

0.08
NA

Four studies use spatial FUs such as m2 of neighborhood [30], m2

of living space per inhabitant [28], m2 of Energy Reference Area
(i.e. m2 of heated floor) [21] or m2 of floor area [29]. Eventually
Stephan et al.[30] and Norman et al. [28] use both per capita and
1

spatial FUs to improve comparability between case studies or

scenarios. Stephan et al. [30] state that the simultaneous use of
spatial, per capita and absolute units is highly relevant to a full
understanding of urban density effects. For instance [28], found
2

^t 1

that a low-density neighborhood used around 2 to 2.5 times more

Meudon La Fore

e
Marne La Valle

energy than a high-density neighborhood on a per capita basis,

but only 1 to 1.5 as much energy on a per “unit of living space”
Freiburg

basis. Indeed the use of spatial unit measures the intensity of

Lyon

resources use and the impact intensity of an urban project.

Whereas the use of per capita units captures social differences
such as the house size and allows for the assessment of the effi-
Germany

France

France

France

ciency of use of resources and the impacts intensity of the

population.
Peuportier et al., 2006

and Lespinoy,

3.1.3. Scope: boundaries, life cycle steps

Herfray et al., 2011

and Roux, 2013

The LCA model of a neighborhood is complex. Popovici (2006)

Herfray, 2011 þ

[13] for instance proposes a comprehensive model in which the

Peuportier

neighborhood is composed of three elements; buildings, open

2011
Trocme

spaces and networks and the life cycle steps are the construction
phase including the production of the neighborhood constitutive
elements and the construction of the neighborhood, the use
170 M. Lotteau et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 165e178
Fig. 1. Neighborhood life cycle steps and associated contributors at both building and neighborhood scale.
phase, the renovation phase including the maintenance of the
neighborhood and the demolition phase including the demolition
of the neighborhood and management of demolition waste. In this
framework, the daily mobility is included in the use phase of the
neighborhood on the same level as energy consumption for heating
or water use. For the purpose of this review we propose a slight
adaptation of this model. To define system boundaries we use the
four fields of the built environment as defined in Section 2.1:
buildings (B), open spaces (OS), networks (N) and mobility (M). As
for life cycle steps, we define i) the Construction phase (raw ma-
terials extraction, manufacturing, buildings and infrastructures
construction), ii) the Use phase (operation and maintenance), and
iii) the Deconstruction phase (end of life). For each life cycle phase
there are building scale contributors and neighborhood scale con-
tributors (i.e. related to OS, N and M). The neighborhood life cycle
steps and main associated processes encountered in reviewed pa-
pers are summed up in Fig. 1, adapted from Ref. [30] for the purpose
of this review.
3.1.3.1. System boundaries. Within the reviewed papers there is a
great heterogeneity in the selection of system boundaries which is
always linked to the specific goal of the study. First of all, the four
fields of the built environment are not evenly taken into account.
Only four papers account for the four fields of the neighborhood
system. Five papers deal with buildings, open spaces and networks,
two papers focus on buildings and mobility, one paper focuses on
buildings and open spaces and two papers address buildings only.
Furthermore each field is covered in different ways from one
study to another. Depending of the studies different physical ele-
ments are taken into account or neglected for each field of the built
environment; i) different types of roads, sidewalks, parking and
green spaces for the open spaces field, ii) electricity, water,
wastewater, gas, district heating or waste management networks
for the Network field, and iii) different transportation means for the
mobility field (i.e. passenger car, train and bus).
This heterogeneity in the definition of the neighborhood system
to be assessed is further strengthened by a third level of hetero-
geneity regarding the contributors that are taken into account for
each physical element. The building field presents the highest
number of possible contributors and these contributors are not
evenly accounted for in the reviewed papers. For the use phase
only, buildings analysis can include various energy consumption
items (heating/cooling, ventilation, domestic hot water, specific
electricity, appliances, cooking, etc.) but also other items such as
water use or domestic waste production.
On the other side there are some shared choices regarding
system boundaries selection. For instance, utility networks are al-
ways modelled as “passive elements” meaning that network ma-
terials are the only contributors to this field. This comes from the
fact that utility consumption (electricity, water, gas) are contribu-
tors to the buildings and open spaces fields. Another common point
is that expenditures such as households’ activities outside the area
of the neighborhood (work, school etc.) or households' consump-
tion that is not directly related to the buildings or the daily mobility
(e.g. food, clothing, leisure or travel) are not taken into account.
Indeed these expenditures are expected to be quite comparable
across the same households independently of the neighborhood
they are living in Ref. [31].
The Physical elements and associated contributors that are
encountered within the reviewed papers are summarized in
Table 3.
3.1.3.2. Life cycle steps considered. Concerning life cycle steps, all
the studies include the operational phase. Seventy percent of pa-
pers take into account all three phases, i.e. construction, operation
and deconstruction, whereas remaining 30% do not account for
deconstruction. However, construction and operation phases can
be accounted for in different ways, for instance Norman et al. [28]
 M. Lotteau et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 165e178 171

Table 3
Possible physical elements and associated contributors for the different fields of the built environment.

Built environment fields Buildings Open spaces Networks Mobility

Physical Elements - buildings - roads - electricity network - passenger car

- sidewalks - water network - train
- parking - wastewater network - bus
- green spaces - gas network
- district heating network

Contributors - construction materials - construction materials - construction materials - vehicle manufacturing

- construction waste - construction waste - construction waste - daily mobility
- maintenance materials - maintenance materials - maintenance materials
- maintenance waste - maintenance waste - maintenance waste
- heating - public lighting - demolition waste
- cooling - water for maintenance of public spaces
- domestic hot water - public wastes
- ventilation - demolition wastes
- specific electricity
- cooking
- drinking water
- domestic wastes
- wastewater
- demolition waste

indicate that building and infrastructure construction and main-
tenance are not included in the study boundary due to a lack of
available data and their relative insignificance to the overall life
cycle as reported by previous buildings LCA studies. Davila and
Reinhart [29] focuses on embodied energy across the entire life
cycle and do not consider operational requirements. Furthermore,
the authors also neglect both materials transportation and con-
struction. Regarding the mobility field, only the operation phase is
accounted for in the reviewed studies, except in Ref. [30] that takes
into account vehicle manufacturing.
Life cycle phases taken into account for each study, as well as
system boundaries in terms of fields of the built environment are
summarized in Table 2.
3.2. Phase 2: life cycle inventory (LCI)
3.2.1. Foreground data
When analyzing the built environment at neighborhood scale,
the major foreground processes (i.e. specific to the studied system)
are; (i) consumption of construction materials for buildings, open
spaces and networks, (ii) energy and water consumption in build-
ings, networks and open spaces, and (iii) transport requirements
for daily mobility. Most of case studies are either large existing
neighborhoods [30e32], neighborhood projects [22,23,25,26,33] or
model neighborhoods [28,29,34], what makes really difficult or
prevents the systematic collection of detailed site-specific data (e.g.
detailed composition for each building or actual energy consump-
tion data for each building).
3.2.1.1. Construction materials. Construction materials quantities
are most of the time obtained through direct analysis of the
neighborhood plan or masterplan (for neighborhood projects). In
some studies, the authors also used the detailed plans of few typical
buildings. In Norman et al. [28], Stephan et al. [30] and Nichols and
Kockelman [31], which study large existing neighborhoods, build-
ings are represented by few typical buildings for which detailed
data was available. For smaller projected-neighborhoods, specific
data for each buildings can be obtained from buildings' plans
(depending the progress of the project). Nevertheless the analysis
of plans only gives access to square meters of buildings of each type,
then the studies have to infer the choice of materials in accordance
with the targeted energy efficiency for projected-neighborhoods,
or from statistical data for existing neighborhoods. Open spaces
and networks materials quantities are also obtained through the
analysis of plans. It can be noticed that no paper mentions fore-
ground data related to the building construction works and civil
works. In most of the studies, materials LCI data are not available.
3.2.1.2. Buildings' operation. Regarding buildings' operation, two
types of energy consumption data are collected. On one hand all the
reviewed papers take into account thermal energy requirements,
i.e. energy consumption for either heating or cooling and domestic
hot water production, and provide explanation from where data is
sourced or estimated On the other hand, there are all other (mostly
electricity-based) energy uses that are not evenly accounted for
across the different studies and for which fewer data sources are
available.
Thermal energy requirements are either obtained through field
surveys [32,35], through average national data [28] or most of the
time through modelling. Different types of modelling approaches
are possible. A majority of papers rely on buildings thermal simu-
lation; Peuportier et al. [25], Herfray et al. [27], Colombert et al.
[22], Cherqui (2005) [23] and Trocme
and Le
pinoy [33] use the
same building LCA tool called EQUER, that relies on dynamic
thermal simulation, whereas in Stephan et al. [30] and Trigaux et al.
[34] building energy simulation is based on a static heat transfer
model. Other non-simulation modelling approaches are also used.
Nichols and Kockelman [31] use a statistical model of Tir-
umalachetty et al. [36] that controls for a number of climatic, de-
mographic, and built environment explanatory variables. Riera
Pe
rez and Rey [21] calculate a normative thermal energy demand
(Swiss society of Architects and engineers norm 380/1) which is
then adapted depending on the energy standard targeted.
3.2.1.3. Daily mobility. Transport requirements for daily mobility
are also sourced differently. Norman et al. [28] and Stephan et al.
[30] respectively rely on regional and local averages. Riera Pe
rez
and Rey [21] apply a normative method (based on Swiss Society of
Architects and Engineers norm 2039) that weights the Swiss
average energy consumption for mobility by several correction
factors related to the context and facilities. Nichols and Kockelman
[31] developed statistical models that rely on household de-
mographics and physical characteristics to estimate the daily
mobility requirements.
Foreground data sources for materials quantities, energy and
water use in buildings as well as transport requirements for daily
mobility are presented in Table A-1 in supplementary material.
172 M. Lotteau et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 165e178
3.2.2. Background data
Background processes are processes that are not specific to the
studied system, such as extraction of raw materials and production
of construction products, or production of water and electricity. In
the reviewed papers few information is available regarding back-
ground data and their sources.
For construction materials, 66% of the papers use process-based
LCA databases. Seven papers use the ecoinvent database through
the use of building-LCA tools or neighborhood-LCA tools such as
EQUER (and latest version novaEQUER) in Refs. [22,23,25e27,33] or
Lesosai and Eco-Bat in Ref. [21]. Davila and Reinhart [29] use the ICE
(Inventory of Carbon Emission) database from the University of
Bath, as a source for embodied energy data. Two papers rely on
Input-Output (IO) analysis to estimate the energy use and GHG
emissions associated with the manufacture of construction mate-
rials; Norman et al. [28] uses an economic inputeoutput life-cycle
assessment (EIO-LCA) model that employs the 1997 (most recent
year available) EIO-LCA model for the United States and Stephan
et al. [30] uses an IO-based hybrid analysis technique developed by
Ref. [37] with related energy coefficient for Australia. Eventually, in
Nichols and Kockelman [31] embodied energy is estimated for
buildings and infrastructure materials based on a meta-analysis of
detailed life-cycle analyses.
As for energy vectors related background data, the papers using
the EQUER tool rely on ecoinvent database. In Riera Pe
rez and Rey
[21] the conversion factors from final energy to non-renewable
energy (NRE) and global warming potential (GWP) are drawn
from KBOB LCA data (KBOB, 2012), which is a database of LCA of
construction related materials and processes, based on the ecoin-
vent data as well. In Refs. [28e30], conversion factors from final
energy to primary energy and/or GHG emissions are sourced from
local reports. Specifically for transportation, Stephan et al. [30]
sourced energy and GHG intensities of the transport modes from
IO analysis data [38].
Background data sources for materials production, energy vec-
tors and transportation processes are presented in Table A-2.
3.3. Phase 3. life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
As previously explained, in a LCA, the emissions and resources
consumed that can be attributed to a specific product or activity are
compiled and documented in a LCI. An impact assessment is then
performed on the basis of the LCI.
3.3.1. Impacts and damages
Thirty-five percent of reviewed papers focus on primary energy
consumption and/or climate change and exclude other impact
categories [21,28,30]; account for both, whereas [29,31] account for
primary energy consumption only.
Other studies address a broader range of impact categories. In
case studies using the EQUER software [22,23,25e27] the following
impacts and damage categories are assessed;
- Inventory indicators: cumulative energy demand (GJ), water
consumption (m3), waste creation (teq), radioactive waste cre-
ation (dm3)
- Impact categories assessed with midpoint indicators: climate
change (teqCO2), depletion of abiotic resources (kgSb or
dimensionless), acidification potential (kgeqSO2), eutrophication
potential (kgeqPO4), oxidation (summer smog) (kgeqC2H4) and
malodorous air (Mm3)
- Damage categories (endpoint indicators): ecosystem quality
(PDF.m2.year) and human health (DALY)
Nevertheless, there are some variations as for instance the
presence of additional “land use” indicators in Refs. [22,23] that
reflect damages to ecosystems due to land transformation and land
occupation.
Trigaux et al. [34] also selected a broad range of impact and
damage categories; global warming, depletion of the stratospheric
ozone layer, acidification of land and water sources, eutrophication
freshwater and marine, photochemical oxidant formation, abiotic
depletion of non-fossil resources, abiotic resource depletion po-
tential, fossil resources, human toxicity, particulate matter forma-
tion, ionizing radiation, ecotoxicity, land use.
Forsberg (2003) [35] analysis is based on a tool called the
Environmental Load Profile and that focuses on fewer impact cat-
egories; extraction of non-renewable resources, water use, global
warming potential, acidification potential, eutrophication potential,
photochemical ozone depletion potential, radioactive waste and
use of hazardous compounds.
Li and Wang [32] focus on five impact categories; global
warming potential, acidification potential, nutrient and eutrophi-
cation potential, photochemical oxidant creation potential and
solid waste.
Most of the time, the underlying LCIA methods are not docu-
mented in reviewed papers. In Ref. [25], LCIA methods used are; (i)
CML-IA [39] for climate change, depletion of abiotic resources,
acidification potential, eutrophication potential, photochemical
oxidation (summer smog) and malodorous air, (ii) Eco-Indicator 99
[40] for ecosystem quality, aquatic ecotoxicity and human health,
and (iii) Swiss Ecoscarcity [41] for cumulative energy demand,
water consumption, waste creation, radioactive waste creation.
Herfray (2011) [26]uses the same methods except that the author
refers to CML-IA for cumulative energy demand, waste creation,
radioactive waste creation, and does not indicate the method used
for water consumption.
In Trigaux et al. [34], LCIA methods are; (i) ReCiPe [20] Midpoint
for global warming, depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer,
acidification of land and water sources, and ecotoxicity, (ii) ReCiPe
Endpoint for human toxicity, particulate matter formation, ionizing
radiation, and land use, and (iii) CML-IA for eutrophication,
photochemical oxidant formation, and abiotic depletion of non-
fossil resources.
This analysis of the LCIA step of the reviewed papers highlights
several points. First of all, 35% of the studies focus on energy related
criteria (primary energy consumption and climate change)
although LCA is a recognized multicriteria approach. Furthermore
some impact categories, such as air quality, mineral resources
depletion or land use which are subjects of high concern for urban
sustainability, are seldom addressed in reviewed papers. Eventu-
ally, LCIA methods are not systematically documented and selected
LCIA methodologies are rather old. Only Trigaux et al. [34] rely on
more recent LCIA developments such as ReCiPe or ILCD and no
paper uses regionalized LCIA methods.
3.3.2. Facultative steps; normalization, weighting
In addition to LCIA mandatory steps, ISO [17] also indicates two
facultative steps; normalization and weighting. In the normaliza-
tion step, the different characterized impact scores are related to a
common reference, e.g. the impacts caused by one person during
one year. In the weighting step, a ranking and/or weighting is
performed of the different environmental impact categories.
Among reviewed papers, two papers only go through a
normalization step. In Herfray et al. [27] impact indicators are
normalized in equivalent inhabitants-year, using French references
(e.g. 8.7 teqCO2 emissions per person and per year). In Li and Wang
[32] results are normalized with following average values for
Beijing.
Two papers go through a weighting step. Li and Wang [32]
Table 4
LCIA results e primary energy consumption (PEC) and climate change (CC).

Reference FU neighborhood.year FU inhabitant.year FU m2(neigh.).year FU m2 (floor area).year

2
Location Case study Size (km ) Residential Boundaries LC steps Analysis Type of PEC TJ CC kteqCO2 PEC GJ CC teqCO2 PEC MJ CC kgeqCO2 PEC MJ CC kgeqCO2
density duration neighborhood
(inhab./km2)

Stephan et al., 2013 Melbourne 1 1,5 500 - B - Cons. 100 100% residential 73,0 5,4 104,3 7,8 48,7 3,6 1664,8 123,8
(Australia) - OS - Op.
- N
- M
Nichols and Austin (USA) 4 13.1 370 - B - Cons. NA 91% residential 559,5 115,0 42,7
Kockelman, 2014 1.7 2040 - OS - Op. 91% residential 373,3 110,0 219,6
2,2 2200 - N 71% residential 479,1 97,0 217,8
1,3 5940 - M 90% residential 556,4 72,0 428,0

M. Lotteau et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 165e178

Norman et al., 2006 Toronto (Canada) 2 NA 27 000 - B - Cons. 50 100% residential 40,1 3,3 936,4 77,7
NA 5700 - OS - Op. 86,0 8,6 1068,0 107,3
- N
- M
Forsberg, 2003 € stad 1
Hammarby Sjo NA NA - B - Cons. NA 100% residential 2,8
(Sweden) - OS - Op
- N
- M
Riera-Perez et al., 2013 Lausanne 1 0,07 14 700 - B - Cons. 60 97% residential 71,9 4,1 69,8 4,0 1026,5 59,2 1216,8 70,2
(Switzerland) - M - Op
- Decons.
Davila and Cambridge (USA) 1 NA NA - B - Cons. 100 100% residential 531,7
Reinhart, 2013 - Op
- Decons.
Cherqui, 2005 La Rochelle (France) 1 0,02 32 500 - B - Cons. 80 100% residential 8,6 0,4 13,2 0,6 427,5 19,4 438,5 19,9
- Op
- Decons.
Colombert et al., 2011 Paris (France) 1 0,15 NA - B - Cons. 80 Mixt 103,4 2,3 689,1 15,3 1159,2 25,8
- OS - Op 36 670 m2 dwellings
- N - Decons. 40 000 m2 offices
6 500 m2 activities
1 000 m2 shops
15 000 m2 public
equipment
Herfray et al., 2011 Freiburg 2 0,024 16 400 - B - Cons. 80 Mixt 5,7 0,4 14,4 1,1 236,8 17,6
(Germany) 0,039 10 100 - OS - Op 63% residents 0,0 0,5 0,0 1,2 0,0 12,5
- N - Decons. 20% employees
17% students
Herfray, 2011 Marne La Valle
e 1 0,095 9340 - B - Cons. 80 Mixt 15,1 17,0 158,0 281,3
(þPeuportier (France) - OS - Op 39% residents
and Roux, 2013) Freiburg 2 - N - Decons. 51% employees 18,6 21,0 550,8 346,9
(Germany) 10% students 5,0 5,7 140,1 74,0
Peuportier et al., 2006 Lyon (France) 1 NA NA - B - Cons. 80 Mixt 63,0 0,8 840,0 10,8
- OS - Op 60 000 m2 dwellings
- N - Decons. 15 000 m2 offices

173
174 M. Lotteau et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 165e178
Fig. 2. Primary energy consumption and climate change; min, Q1, median, Q3 and max values.
applied weighting factors to the five impact categories assessed,
but did not discuss the choice of the weighting factors. In Trigaux
et al. [34] a weighting is proposed by means of monetary valuation.
The characterization values for each individual environmental in-
dicator were aggregated by means of the environmental cost
method. For each individual environmental indicator, the charac-
terization values are multiplied by a monetization factor (e.g.: X kg
CO2 equivalents times Y EURO/kg CO2 equivalents) so as to come to
a single environmental score.
3.3.3. LCIA results
Because of the diversity of the case studies (in terms of neigh-
borhood typology) and the variety of functional units used in the
reviewed papers it is not straightforward to provide a summary of
LCIA results in a format allowing comparison between case studies.
As an attempt to do so, whenever it was possible with the data
available we calculated both primary energy consumption (PEC)
and climate change (CC) indicators for the entire neighborhood as
well as per inhabitant, per m2 floor area and per m2 of neighbor-
hood. These results are provided in Table 4 for residential (or mostly
residential) case studies (upper part of the table) and for mixt case
studies (lower part of the table).
When interpreting these figures, one has to keep in mind that
the system boundaries and analysis duration vary across case
studies. When considering the entire sample of case studies for
which LCIA results are available, primary energy consumption
ranges from 0 to 115 GJ/inhab./year with a median value of 55 GJ/
inhab/year (sample made of 14 values). And GHG emissions range
from 0.6 to 8.6 teqCO2/inhab./year with a median value of 3.1
teqCO2/inhab./year (sample made of 8 values). Thus correspond-
ingly to the heterogeneity of the case studies and of their modelling
in reviewed papers, results covers three orders of magnitude for
primary energy consumption and two orders of magnitude for
climate change on a per capita basis.
These results, as well as primary energy consumption and GHG
emissions per (m2 floor area$year) are summarized in Fig. 2 for the
whole sample of case studies.
Seven residential case studies from 4 papers [28,30,31] are
somewhat comparable because they use the same system
boundaries in terms of both life cycle steps (Cons. and Op.) and
fields of the built environment (B., OS, N. and M.). For these resi-
dential case studies, the primary energy consumption ranges from
40 to 115 GJ/inhab./year with an average value of 89 GJ/inhab./year
(sample made of 7 values). And GHG emissions range from 3.3 to
8.6 teqCO2/inhab./year with an average value of 6.6 teqCO2/inhab./
year (sample made of 3 values). However analysis duration are
really different; 100 years in Ref. [30], 50 years in Ref. [28] and not
communicated in Ref. [31].
In the case of mixt neighborhoods, 7 case studies from 5 papers
[22,25e27] account for the same life cycle steps (Cons., Op. and
Decons.), the same fields of the built environment (B., OS. and N.)
and use the same analysis duration (80 years). For these case
studies, the primary energy consumption ranges from 0 to 21 GJ/
inhab./year with a median value of 12 GJ/inhab./year (sample made
of 5 values).
3.4. Phase 4: interpretation
3.4.1. Contribution analysis
A total of nine studies provide a contribution analysis either
among different fields of the built environment (B., OS., N. and M.)
or among life cycle steps (Cons., Op., Decons.). Considering the
heterogeneity in the choice of system boundaries as well as in the
display of results, it is not possible to sum up these contribution
analysis in one consistent way and draw general conclusions.
Instead and for illustration purpose, we propose hereunder a brief
summary of the most complete contribution analysis among
reviewed papers.
Stephan et al. [30] demonstrate that neighborhood operational
energy is the major contributor to the entire lifecycle and accounts
for 39.4% of primary energy consumption (PEC) and 42.4% GHG
emissions. The second contributor is mobility, accounting for 33.6%
PEC and 36% GHG emissions, followed by embodied energy ac-
counting for 26.0% PEC and 21.6% GHG emissions. Regarding
embodied energy, it is to be noticed that in this study, the embodied
energy of transport infrastructure (roads) is included in the
“Mobility” contributor. This study also underlines the important
contribution of infrastructure (roads and networks) to the
 M. Lotteau et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 165e178
neighborhood life cycle embodied energy (16.9%) and points out
the relative insignificance of the construction works with only 1.3%
contribution to the embodied energy (0,03% to the total life cycle
energy).
On average for the four neighborhoods studied by Nichols and
Kockelman [31], building sources account for 53% of PEC, mobility
sources (operational and embodied on transport infrastructure)
account for 45.5% PEC and infrastructure sources (water, waste-
water and lighting) account for only 1% PEC.
In a comparison of residential developments of different den-
sities Norman et al. [28] conclude that mobility contributes far
more significantly to overall energy use and GHG emissions in a
low-density development context than in a high-density develop-
ment context and that relatedly, building operational impacts are
more significant in the high-density case. The authors also high-
light that material production accounts for only approximately 10%
of total energy use and GHG emissions. On a per capita basis, they
found that the majority of GHG emissions in both cases (low and
high density) result from mobility while the majority of energy use
results from building operations.
In a comparison of four scenarios based on different types of
residential buildings Trigaux et al. [34] shows that the contribution
of road infrastructure ranges from 1% to 6% of the total impact
(roads and buildings).
In studies of low energy neighborhoods focusing on buildings,
open spaces and networks Herfray et al. [27] and Herfray (2011)
[26] respectively found that in terms of primary energy consump-
tion, the construction phase accounts for 7% and 13,5%, the opera-
tion phase accounts for 92% and 85% and the deconstruction phase
accounts for 1% and 1.5%. Here again we see the dominance of the
operation phase and the relative insignificance of the deconstruc-
tion phase. Nevertheless Herfray et al. [27] also analyzes a positive
energy neighborhood and as expected results are really different;
the construction phase accounts for 41.5% of PEC what becomes
comparable to the contribution of the operation phase (53.5%). It
should also be noticed that compared to low energy neighbor-
hoods, the increased contribution of the construction phase for the
positive energy neighborhood is both a relative and absolute in-
crease. Regarding the deconstruction phase, it is only a relative
increase.
Cherqui (2005) [23] conducted a contribution analysis according
to life cycle steps for the 11 impact categories he considered. This
study also highlights the dominance of the operation phase and the
relative insignificance of the deconstruction phase among all
impact categories except for waste creation for which the major
contributor is indeed the deconstruction phase.
As it has already been highlighted in critical reviews of LCA for
buildings [6e8], it is not possible from this review for neighbor-
hoods to extract universal general results from the reviewed papers
because the neighborhoods that have been studied are very
different in terms of size, density, location, etc. and also because of
the heterogeneity in methodological choices (e.g. system bound-
aries, analysis duration). Nevertheless some trends can be identi-
fied from the above-mentioned contribution analysis:
- buildings, followed by mobility are the major contributors, in
terms of fields of the built environment, to primary energy
consumption and GHG emissions
- contributions to primary energy consumption and GHG emis-
sions of buildings' operation, mobility and neighborhood
embodied energy can be of the same order of magnitude
- the predominance of the operation phase
- the significance of the production phase that even become of the
same order of magnitude as the operation phase for highly en-
ergy efficient neighborhoods
175
- the relative insignificance of the deconstruction phase except
for the “waste creation” impact category
3.4.2. Sensitivity check
Only two papers directly address uncertainty issues by
completing a sensitivity analysis. In Stephan et al. [30] uncertainty
and variability in the data are taken into account through interval
analysis. This technique provides a certain range around the
nominal value in which the actual figure may lie. The author set the
uncertainty on the embodied energy to ±20% and ±50% for process
data and inputeoutput data respectively. The variability in opera-
tional energy figures is set to ±20%. According to this interval
analysis, the shares of embodied, operational and transport energy
lie within, 15.3e39.4%, 28.7e52.5%, and 23.9e46% respectively.
Thus, the uncertainty for embodied, operational, and transport
energy is estimated to be ±47%, ±29%, and ±32% respectively.
In Nichols and Kockelman [31] the author computed elasticities
to estimate the primary energy consumption response to changes
in the built environment or user behavior. Elasticities illustrate the
relative sensitivity of primary energy consumption to specific var-
iables. Among a broad set of variables, elasticities of greatest sig-
nificance are elasticities of primary energy consumption to
residential unit size, population density, and percentage of single
family houses.
In addition of above-mentioned sensitivity analysis, the evalu-
ation of scenarios (done in 7 case studies) can also be considered as
sensitivity analysis. This is done by comparing with basis scenario
values and by showing the increase or decrease for each impact
category. This review does not collect LCIA results from the pro-
spective scenarios.
4. Methodological challenges & research needs
4.1. System multifunctionality and functional unit definition
Because of the heterogeneity, complexity and multi-
functionality of neighborhoods, it appears difficult to define a
unique and comprehensive functional unit (FU) to compare
neighborhoods or scenarios for a same neighborhood. Herfray et al.
[27] states that the definition of the FU depends on the goal of the
study but insists on the fact that some common aspects have to be
included in order to compare alternatives; the neighborhood
functions (residential, work, leisure, etc.), some quantities (m2 of
housing, offices, shops, public spaces, number of inhabitants and
workers, etc.), quality criteria for the neighborhood functions
(thermal, visual or acoustic comfort, quality of life, etc.) and a
duration of analysis.
Herfray (2011) [26] whose objective is to compare neighbor-
hoods development scenarios, go through the adaptation, of
different case studies in order to improve their comparability. In a
comparison of an actual neighborhood with two reference neigh-
borhoods, the author proposes a very detailed functional unit as
such; “a neighborhood with 887 inhabitants, 734 tertiary em-
ployees, 423 employees in shops and 240 students, situated in Ile
de France, and considered on a 80 years lifetime”. And a method-
ology is proposed to adapt the reference neighborhoods so that
they match with this FU defined from the actual scenario in terms
of proportion of users of each type, without changing their initial
densities.
This idea of a “multi-dimension” functional unit is further
developed by Loiseau (2014) [42] at the scale of the territory who
proposes an adaptation of the LCA framework to environmental
assessment in land planning. As in the case of neighborhoods, the
author identifies the territory's multi-functionality as a major
176 M. Lotteau et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 165e178
bottleneck in the application of LCA to its environmental assess-
ment because it makes the functional unit definition step prob-
lematic. A revised approach to functional unit and reference flow is
proposed in order to overcome this issue. In conventional LCA, the
reference flow is determined by the choice of the functional unit,
whereas in the revised approach the author suggests to consider
the territory with a specific land planning scenario as the reference
flow and then, to determine the main territory's functions and
assess their performance in parallel with LCIA. Consequently two
kind of indicators are determined using this approach, (i) a vector of
environmental impacts (LCIA phase of conventional LCA) and, (ii) a
vector of land use functions provided by the territory for different
stakeholders. We believe that an adaptation of this approach to
neighborhood LCA should be more systematically investigated and
developed, considering functions such as; housing provision, jobs
provision, accessibility to daily services, mobility, quality of life, etc.
Another approach to partially overcome the impossibility to
define a unique FU and improve comparability among case studies
consist in combining the use of three types of FUs (i.e. spatial, per
capita and absolute) [28,30,31].
4.2. Contextualization
The contextualization of the LCA of a neighborhood is another
major challenge in order to provide decision-makers with useful
analysis, be it for the design of the neighborhood development
project or for urban policy making. The lack of consideration of the
specific situation of a neighborhood is not only a limitation of LCA,
but is clearly identified as a limitation of most of the existing ap-
proaches for sustainability assessment at neighborhood scale [21].
Indeed, a neighborhood, contrary to industrial products for
instance, is by nature a highly contextualized system. It is
embedded in a specific environment, is subject to a specific climate,
interacts with a specific technosphere, hosts users with culturally-
driven behaviors, and can face local environmental issues (in
addition to global environmental issues). Thus the need for con-
textualization of the analysis occurs at a number of levels in both
LCI and LCIA.
Contextualization in the LCI phase requires using as much as
possible site-specific data for processes of both foreground and
background systems. As previously stated, a major contributor to a
neighborhood's life cycle impacts is the operational energy uses of
buildings, which can be largely influenced by the building's urban
environment. Srebric et al. [43] proposes a review of the building
neighborhood properties influencing the energy and airflows. The
authors stress the fact that energy consumption patterns are highly
dependent on the surrounding urban neighborhood. For instance
Gracik et al. [44] found that variations in local climate and airflows
around buildings can lead to a 17% reduction in air conditioners COP
in an urban context (compared to a rural context) Within the
reviewed papers different approaches are proposed to assess en-
ergy consumptions in buildings. These approaches can be split in
two categories; (i) use of statistical data and, (ii) use of thermal
simulation (static or dynamic) at the building scale. Both ap-
proaches have their advantages and drawbacks. Thermal simula-
tion at the building scale enables the contextualization of the
assessment of buildings' energy consumption as it can take into
account the local climate (irradiation, wind) as well as the in-
teractions between buildings and the environment (e.g. through
shading or solar reflection). Nevertheless this type of analysis re-
quires a large amount of time and data (regarding buildings and
their surroundings) that are not available at the beginning of a
neighborhood development project. On the other hand using sta-
tistical data is more consistent in terms of data availability with the
early stage of a neighborhood development project, but is not
precise enough to support the design process regarding buildings
energy efficiency.
Thus in the field of decision-support for neighborhood planning,
there is a clear research need for the development of approaches
that would enable the contextualization of the assessment of en-
ergy consumption in buildings while remaining consistent with
data availability in a project's early design phase. These approaches
should ideally take into account the influence of the master-
planning stage design levers, such as urban morphology, surface
materials or vegetation, on buildings energy requirements. They
should enable to assess a masterplan on such issues as the potential
use of incoming solar energy by buildings or the urban heat island
(UHI) effect for instance. This assessment should be performed at
the neighborhood scale and not at the individual building scale for
which data is not yet available. One research lead consists in
investigating the possible correlations between buildings' energy
demand and simple evaluation metrics. For instance, in a review of
early-design phase evaluation metrics for the solar potential of
neighborhood design, Nault et al. [45] investigate whether
compactness and solar exposure levels can be used as performance
indicators when applied to neighborhoods. Srebric et al. [43] also
identifies urban morphology parameters, such as the urban plan
area density, frontal area density and mean height of the buildings,
as suitable for the development of generalized energy demand
models at the neighborhood scale.
Contextualization in the LCIA phase consists in recognizing
which environmental mechanisms are relevant in the local context
of a neighborhood. A number of environmental mechanisms have a
global scope, while others have a regional one [20]. This difference
means that a particular environmental mechanism can have very
important impacts in one region, but not in another. This can be
taken into account through the use of regionalized LCIA methods.
Several local and regional impacts categories are being contextu-
alized: for example water deprivation [46], eutrophication [47],
land use [48]. However, most of the methods are not yet oper-
ationalized and efforts should be made to include them in the LCA
of neighborhoods. Other impact categories such as those related to
air quality which are particularly relevant when assessing the im-
pacts of mobility need further developments to be regionalized.
Also, there is need of tools coupling LCA and geographical infor-
mation system (GIS) that enable the assessment of neighborhood at
the local scale.
4.3. Temporal aspects in LCA
LCA application to neighborhood environmental assessment
raises issues related to temporal aspects.
A first issue stems in the choice of the life cycle duration. A
neighborhood is often being built over decades and is composed of
long-lasting elements, with various lifetimes that cannot be pre-
cisely anticipated. Furthermore, components such as buildings are
likely to undergo renovations or changes of use during their life-
time. Thus it is complex to determine a proper neighborhood life-
time or analysis duration, as well as specific lifetimes of sub-
components for which maintenance is anticipated, which is
necessary to conduct a LCA. Today there is no consensus in the
choice of analysis duration and reviewed papers propose lifetimes
ranging from 50 to 100 years. Furthermore, over such long periods,
technologies are likely to evolve which could possibly modify the
neighborhood impacts.
A second issue related to temporal aspects in LCA is the
consideration of the dynamic behavior of some foreground and
background processes. Considering foreground processes, we
already discussed the use of thermal dynamic simulation to assess
buildings' energy consumption. Considering background processes
 M. Lotteau et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 165e178
developments are ongoing regarding dynamic LCA aspects in order
to account for the temporal evolution of the electricity production
mix [26]. This improves the accuracy of the evaluation and is
particularly relevant for low-energy buildings and neighborhoods.
Peuportier and Roux [24] reports that applying this dynamic LCA
model may lead to 30% difference compared to a standard LCA
practice considering an annual average electricity mix. Among
possible practical outcome are: the study of demand shifting stra-
tegies according to the temporal variation of impacts, increasing
the passive solar fraction despite higher cooling load in order to
minimize the impacts over one year, improve decision making
process for onsite electricity production [24].
The dynamic LCA model developed by Herfray (2011) [26] ac-
counts for the temporal evolution of the electricity production mix
by assessing hourly the electricity production mix and associated
impacts related to different uses of electricity (heating, cooling,
domestic hot water, …), and including local production of renew-
able energy). This dynamic LCA model enables the author to
investigate attributional LCA vs. consequential LCA. In the attribu-
tional methodology, each energy use at time t is related to the
global production mix at time t, whereas in the consequential
approach, each energy use at time t is related to the production mix
induced by this particular energy use at time t. Results on a positive
energy neighborhood show a 20% reduction of life cycle energy
demand assessed with consequential LCA compared to an assess-
ment by attributional LCA.
5. Conclusions
This paper reviews built environment LCAs at the neighborhood
scale and provides a synthesis and analysis of their main method-
ological choices. It shows that existing case study literature is scarce
and that methodological choices are highly heterogeneous at each
phases of the LCA. Some papers analyze existing large neighbor-
hoods or modeled neighborhoods and use them as prototype
neighborhoods to study urban policy related issues such as envi-
ronmental impacts of residential density. Other papers apply LCA as
a decision-support for smaller neighborhoods masterplanning
processes. As for the goal and scope definition phase, functional
unit definition, system boundaries selection and lifetime of the
neighborhood vary a lot across studies. This lack of methodological
consensus impedes to provide a proper LCIA results comparison
among reviewed papers. Because of the scale of the neighborhood
system, the LCI phase is a critical point and several strategies are
proposed by the reviewed papers to provide data for the main
foreground processes, i.e. (i) construction materials quantities, (ii)
buildings operational energy consumption and, (iii) transport re-
quirements. These strategies range from statistical data collection
or meta-analysis of neighborhood sub-components LCAs, to
detailed simulations based on statistical or physical modelling. In
terms of LCIA, 35% of the papers focus on two impact categories
only, i.e. cumulative energy demand and climate change. Other
studies account for a dozen of classical impact categories. Really
few papers address air quality or land use whereas these are highly
relevant impact categories for urban built environment assessment.
One paper only uses the most recent LCIA methodologies and no
paper uses regionalized LCIA methodologies. Regarding the results
interpretation phase it can be noticed that two papers only provide
some kind of sensitivity check.
As all reviewed papers do, this review highlights the fact that
LCA application to neighborhood assessment is not straightfor-
ward. Each of the reviewed paper proposes its own adaptation of
LCA methodology at the neighborhood scale and this review
permitted to highlight recommendations and challenges. These are
summarized below:
177
- When assessing the built environment at the neighborhood
scale key features of the neighborhood should be systematically
communicated to improve interpretability of the results and
comparability between studies; i.e. number of inhabitants,
number of non-resident users, neighborhood area, total floor
area and analysis duration.
- The multi-functional built environment LCAs should take
advantage of the adaptation of the LCA framework to territorial
assessment [42]. This approach would consist in providing a
new set of indicators in addition to potential environmental
impacts indicators. This new set of indicators would assess the
performance of a neighborhood regarding functions to be
determined.
- For “neighborhood development sustainability studies”, the
influence of the built environment (urban morphology, pres-
ence of vegetation, choice of surface materials) on buildings
energy consumption should be accounted for. This element of
contextualization should be addressed with methodologies
aligned with the data available at the masterplanning stage of a
neighborhood development project.
- For such long-lasting and complex “objects” as neighborhoods,
efforts should be made to systematically include uncertainty
analysis related to long-term temporal evolution of key
parameters.
- The temporal evolution of the electricity production should be
accounted for, especially for low energy neighborhoods
including local production of renewable energy.
- LCIA developments now enable full and comprehensive multi-
criteria assessment of the built environment. Thus mono-
criterion approaches should be avoided in order to prevent
pollution shifting.
- A minimum set of impact and damage categories for neighbor-
hood assessment should be decided. It could include impact
categories such as land use, air quality and non-fossil abiotic
resources depletion (in addition to a more classical set of impact
categories) that seem highly relevant for the assessment of the
built environment.
- As another dimension of contextualization, recent advances in
regionalized impact assessment models related to local and
regional impact should be adapted to neighborhood LCA.
Eventually this review paves the way for future research with
the aim of developing a standardized approach for assessing the
environmental performance of the built environment at the
neighborhood scale, an essential issue as the neighborhood scale is
the operational scale of urban planning.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support of Nobatek (Technological
Resources Center in the field of sustainable construction), and the
French National Association for Technical Research (CIFRE
Convention 2014/0243). The authors also thank the members of the
CyVi-ISM research group (Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainable
Chemistry www.ism.u-bordeaux1.fr/spip.php?rubrique1130) for
helpful discussions.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.06.029.
References
[1] United Nations, Population, Development and the Environment 2013, 2013.
178 M. Lotteau et al. / Building and Environment 93 (2015) 165e178
[2] IEA, World Energy Outlook 2011, Int Energy Agency, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1787/weo-2011-en, 1e666.
[3] B. Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave, L. Meyer, Contribution of Working
Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, 2007.
[4] European Commission, Roadmap to a Ressource Efficient Europe, 2011.
[5] J.E. Anderson, G. Wulfhorst, W. Lang, Energy analysis of the built environ-
mentdA review and outlook, Renew. Sustain Energy Rev. 44 (2015) 149e158,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.12.027.
[6] O. Ortiz, F. Castells, G. Sonnemann, Sustainability in the construction industry:
A review of recent developments based on LCA, Constr. Build. Mater. 23
(2009) 28e39, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.11.012.
[7] M. Buyle, J. Braet, A. Audenaert, LCA in the construction industry : a review,
Int. J. Energy Environ. 6 (2012) 397e405.
[8] L.F. Cabeza, L. Rinco
n, V. Vilarin~ o, G. Pe
rez, A. Castell, Life cycle assessment
(LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building
sector: A review, Renew. Sustain Energy Rev. 29 (2014) 394e416, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.037.
[9] M. Karimpour, M. Belusko, K. Xing, F. Bruno, Minimising the life cycle energy
of buildings: Review and analysis, Build. Environ. 73 (2014) 106e114, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.11.019.
[10] T.M. Baynes, T. Wiedmann, General approaches for assessing urban environ-
mental sustainability, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain 4 (2012) 458e464, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.09.003.
[11] E. Loiseau, G. Junqua, P. Roux, V. Bellon-Maurel, Environmental assessment of
a territory: an overview of existing tools and methods, J. Environ. Manage 112
(2012) 213e225, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.024.
[12] J. Oliver-Sola, A. Josa, A.P. Arena, X. Gabarrell, J. Rieradevall, The GWP-Chart:
an environmental tool for guiding urban planning processes. Application to
concrete sidewalks, Cities 28 (2011) 245e250, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cities.2011.01.003.
[13] E. Popovici, Contribution  a l’analyse de cycle de vie des quartiers, PhD
dissertation, Ecole Nationale supe
rieure des Mines de Paris, Paris, 2006.
[14] ISO, 14044: Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Re-
quirements & Guidelines, 2006.
[15] EC JRC-IES, International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook e
General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment e Detailed Guidance, 2010, http://
dx.doi.org/10.2788/38479.
[16] R. Frischknecht, Life Cycle Inventory Analysis for Decision-making, Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, 1998.
[17] ISO, 14044: Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Principles
& Framework, 2006.
[18] EC JRC-IES, ILCD Handbook: Analysing of Existing Environmental Impact
Assessment Methodologies for Use in Life Cycle Assessment, 2010.
[19] O. Jolliet, A. Brent, M. Goedkoop, N. Itsubo, R. Mueller-Wenk, C. Pen ~ a, et al.,
Final Report of the LCIA Definition Study, 2003.
[20] M. Goedkoop, R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, A De Schryver, J. Struijs, R. Van Zelm,
ReCiPe 2008, a Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises
Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level,
2009.
[21] M.G. Riera Pe
rez, E. Rey, A multi-criteria approach to compare urban renewal
scenarios for an existing neighborhood. Case study in Lausanne (Switzerland),
Build. Environ. 65 (2013) 58e70, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2013.03.017.
[22] M. Colombert, C. De Chastenet, Y. Diab, C. Gobin, G. Herfray, T. Jarrin, et al.,
Analyse de cycle de vie 
chelle du quartier: un outil d'aide a
a l’e  la de

cision? Le
cas de la ZAC Claude Bernard a  Paris (France), Environ. Urbain/Urban Environ.
5 (2011) 1e21, http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/1007605ar.
[23] F. Cherqui, Me
thodologie d’e
valuation d'un Projet d'ame
nagement Durable
d'un Quartier, Me
thode ADEQUA, PhD dissertation, Universite
de La Rochelle,
La Rochelle, 2005.
[24] B. Peuportier, C. Roux, Eco-design of urban sttlements using LCA, in: LCA
[avniR] Conf. 2013, Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Life Cycle Approaches, 2013, pp. 1e6.
[25] B. Peuportier, E. Popovici, M. Trocme
, Analyse de cycle de vie  al’e
chelle du
quartier e Bilan et perspectives du projet, ADEQUA, 2006.
[26] G. Herfray, Contribution a  l’e

valuation des impacts environnementaux des
quartiers, PhD dissertation, 2011.
[27] G. Herfray, E. Vorger, B. Peuportier, Life Cycle Assessment Applied to Urban
Settlements and Urban Morphology Studies. CISBAT 11 Cleantech Sustain,
2011. Build. From Nano to urban scale, Lausanne, 2011.
[28] J. Norman, H.L. Maclean, M. Asce, C.A. Kennedy, Comparing high and low
residential density : life-cycle analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas
emissions, J. Urban Plan. Dev. (2006) 10e21, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9488(2006)132:1(10).
[29] C.C. Davila, C. Reinhart, Urban energy lifecycle : An analyitical framework to
evaluate the embodied energy use of urban developments, in: Proc. BS2013
13th Conf. Int. Build. Perform. Simul. Assoc. Chambe
ry, Fr. August 26e28,
2013, pp. 1280e1287.
[30] A. Stephan, R.H. Crawford, K. de Myttenaere, Multi-scale life cycle energy
analysis of a low-density suburban neighbourhood in Melbourne, Australia,
Build. Environ. 68 (2013) 35e49, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2013.06.003.
[31] B.G. Nichols, K.M. Kockelman, Life-cycle energy implications of different res-
idential settings: recognizing buildings, travel, and public infrastructure, En-
ergy Policy 68 (2014) 232e242, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2013.12.062.
[32] D. Li, R. Wang, Hybrid Emergy-LCA (HEML) based metabolic evaluation of
urban residential areas: The case of Beijing, China. Ecol. Complex 6 (2009)
484e493, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.09.002.
[33] M. Trocme
, O. Le

pinoy, ACV Quartier, application sur un projet de VINCI
Immobilier. Indic. d’e
co Concept. pour les quartiers durables, Chaire ParisTech
Eco-conception des ensembles b^ atis des infrastructures, 2011.
[34] D. Trigaux, K. Allacker, F. De Troyer, Model for the Environmental Impact
Assessment of Neighbourhoods, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.2495/EID140091.
[35] A. Forsberg, Environmental Assessment of the Urban Environment e Devel-
opment and First Application of the Environmental Load Profile for Ham-
marby Sjo €stad, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2003.
[36] S. Tirumalachetty, K.M. Kockelman, B.G. Nichols, Forecasting greenhouse gas
emissions from urban regions: microsimulation of land use and transport
patterns in Austin, Tex. J. Transp. Geogr. 33 (2013) 220e229, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.08.002.
[37] G.J. Treloar, Extracting embodied energy paths from input-output tables :
towards and input-output-based hybrid energy analysis method, Econ. Syst.
Res. 9 (1997) 375e391, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09535319700000032.
[38] M. Lenzen, Total requirements of energy and greenhouse gases for Australian
transport, Transp. Res. Part D. Transp. Environ. 4 (1999) 265e290, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00009-7.
[39] J. Guinee, M. Gorre
e, R. Heijungs, G. Huppes, R. Kleijn, A. de Koning, et al., Life
Cycle Assessment an Operational Guide to the ISO Standards, 2001. Leiden.
[40] M. Goedkoop, R. Spriensma, The Eco-indicator99: a Damage Oriented Method
for Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Methodology Report, 2000.
[41] R. Frischknecht, N. Jungbluth, H.-.J. Althaus, G. Doka, T. Heck, S. Hellweg, et al.,
Overview and Methodology, 2004 ecoinvent report No. 1. Dübendorf, Suisse.
[42] E. Loiseau, Elaboration d’une de
marche d'e
valuation environnementale d'un
territoire base
e sur le cadre me
thodologique de l'Analyse du Cycle de vie (
ACV ) Application au territoire du bassin de Thau, 2014.
[43] J. Srebric, M. Heidarinejad, J. Liu, Building neighborhood emerging properties
and their impacts on multi-scale modeling of building energy and airflows,
Build. Environ. 91 (2015) 246e262, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2015.02.031.
[44] S. Gracik, M. Heidarinejad, J. Liu, J. Srebric, Effect of urban neighborhoods on
the performance of building cooling systems, Build. Environ. 90 (2015) 15e29,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.02.037.
[45] E. Nault, G. Peronato, E. Rey, M. Andersen, Review and critical analysis of
early-design phase evaluation metrics for the solar potential of neighborhood
designs, Build. Environ. 92 (2015) 679e691, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2015.05.012.
[46] A. Kounina, M. Margni, J.-B. Bayart, A.-M. Boulay, M. Berger, C. Bulle, et al.,
Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and
impact assessment, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (2012) 707e721, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0519-3.
[47] L.B. Azevedo, A.D. Henderson, R. van Zelm, O. Jolliet, M. a J. Huijbregts,
Assessing the importance of spatial variability versus model choices in life
cycle impact assessment: the case of freshwater eutrophication in Europe,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (2013) 13565e13570, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
es403422a.
[48] T. Koellner, L. Baan, T. Beck, M. Branda~o, B. Civit, M. Margni, et al., UNEP-SETAC
guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and
ecosystem services in LCA, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (2013) 1188e1202,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0579-z.