A Comparative Study of Standardised Inputs and Inconsistent Outputs in LCA Software

Abstract

Motivation: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a valuable tool for quantifying environmental impacts in construction. However, inconsistencies between software outputs may compromise effective decision-making.

Knowledge Gap: In New Zealand’s construction sector, practitioners have limited guidance in selecting suitable LCA tools due to gaps in software scope, data transparency, and the quality of result interpretation.

Aim and Objectives: This study investigates inconsistencies in results produced by eight widely used LCA software tools and identifies the key factors contributing to these variations.

Research Method: This study uses a comparative analysis with data from a timber-framed warehouse project in Auckland, New Zealand. Eight software tools (SimaPro V9.0, openLCA V2.0, LCAQuick V3.5, Building Carbon Calculator V1.0, CCaLC2 V3.1, eTool V5.0, One Click LCA, and Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings V5.4) were evaluated across 14 environmental impact categories using standardised inputs.

Preliminary Findings: Substantial inconsistencies were observed even with standardised inputs, although SimaPro V9.0 and openLCA V2.0 provided the most consistent results. These findings highlight the importance of software selection for reliable environmental assessments.

Research Significance: This study aids industry practitioners in selecting effective LCA tools for sustainable construction practices.