Three Types of Buildings, Three Tools: Why Does Building Life Cycle Assessment Need Standardization?

Senuri Wijekoon; Sihara Gallage; Madhavi Herath; Madhushika Senanayake; Abiru Abayapala; Shiromi Karunaratne

doi:10.56394/aris2.v6i1.95

Authors

Senuri Wijekoon Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology
Sihara Gallage Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1392-2456
Madhavi Herath Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology
Madhushika Senanayake Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0726-6685
Abiru Abayapala Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8181-9899
Shiromi Karunaratne Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56394/aris2.v6i1.95

Keywords:

Athena IE, One Click LCA, eTool LCD, sustainable building

Abstract

The growth of global construction necessitates robust environmental impact assessment methods. Yet inconsistencies in life cycle assessment (LCA) tools limit benchmarking, particularly in Asian regions. This study addresses this need by conducting a comprehensive evaluation of three widely used life cycle assessment (LCA) tools: Athena IE, One Click LCA, and eTool LCD applied to Sri Lanka's most common building types: office, apartment, and residential buildings. Furthermore, through a comparative analysis, it identifies software-specific limitations and establishes performance rankings for the three tools based on five published evaluation themes. The study focuses on four critical impact categories: global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), and eutrophication potential (EP). The analysis revealed tool-dependent variations of up to 15% in GWP values (office: 13.4-22; apartment: 25.3-35.2; residential: 9.7-12.6 kg CO₂-eq/m²/year), primarily resulting from differences in regional databases and calculation methodologies. Consistent with established literature, the use stage (B1–B7) emerged as the dominant contributor (>75%) to GWP among the selected building types, followed by the product stage (A1–A3). The systematic evaluation ranked One Click LCA highest (90%), with eTool LCD (75%) and Athena IE (62%) demonstrating specific limitations in regional applicability. These findings highlight the importance of tool selection in emission assessments. Also, it underscores the urgent need for standardized LCA protocols in tropical developing regions. For practitioners, this study provides guidance for selecting LCA tools.

References

[1] S. Karunaratne and D. Dharmarathna, “A review of comprehensiveness, user-friendliness, and contribution for sustainable design of whole building environmental life cycle assessment software tools,” Build. Environ., vol. 212, p. 108784, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.108784.

[2] A. Haapio and P. Viitaniemi, “A critical review of building environmental assessment tools,” Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 469–482, Oct. 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2008.01.002.

[3] E. Meex, G. Verbeeck, and P. Viitaniemi, “(PDF) User-friendliness of current building environmental impact assessment tools: an architect’s perspective,” in ResearchGate, Mar. 2016. Accessed: Jul. 16, 2025.