Filling the gaps Circular transition of affordable housing in Denmark

• Published in: IOP conference series. Earth and environmental science Vol. 1078; no. 1; pp. 12078 - 12089
• Main Authors: Larsen, V G, Tollin, N, Antoniucci, V, Birkved, M, Sattrup, P A, Holmboe, T, Marella, G
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bristol IOP Publishing 01.09.2022
• Subjects: Affordable housing; Building materials; Buildings; circular economy; Construction; Construction industry; Construction materials; Emissions; Emissions control; Green buildings; Greenhouse gases; Housing; LCA; LCC; LCSA; Life cycle analysis; Life cycle assessment; Life cycle costs; Life cycles; Literature reviews; Renovation; S-LCA; Service life; Social housing; Sustainability; Urban environments; Denmark
• ISSN: 1755-1307; 1755-1315
• DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012078

Abstract The building industry accounts for about 40% of all climate impacts, stemming from construction and renovation processes, use of buildings and demolition, disposal and recycling of buildings and building materials. The Danish Parliament passed a Danish Climate Act in 2020 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70% by 2030, and an action plan in 2021 to create a Circular Economy (CE) in DK that can support the achievement of climate neutrality by 2050. About 20% of the Danish housing stock is affordable housing with approx. 560.000 affordable housing homes, inhabited by nearly 1 million out of 5.8 million people. In 2020 the Danish Government decided on the most significant overall housing agreement to set aside EUR 5,5 billion for ‘Green renovations’ and the building of new affordable housing. Building and renovating affordable housing in Denmark can thus become significant drivers for the Danish building industry’s transition to CE. Therefore, developing integrated tools and methodologies for life cycle thinking and CE assessment for the built environment is necessary. We have identified four significant gaps in this endeavour in a previously released literature review: For CE to succeed, it is necessary to take a circular view of the life cycle of buildings, which includes the service life phase, the reuse phase and the recycle phase; To achieve CE, it is necessary to continue research regarding the possibilities of integrating Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Cost (LCC) and Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) into Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA); S-LCA needs further maturation and development; It is imperative to focus upon operationalising LCSA for practitioners in all phases of a building’s life cycle. This paper aims to outline a strategy for analysing and discussing these four gaps and their interrelation in-depth and suggest an action research proposal to understand better how to bridge the gaps from a research perspective.