Building life cycle assessment (LCA) draws on a number of indicators, including primary energy (PE) demand and global warming potential (GWP). A method of constructing a composite index of weighted individual indicators facilitates their use in comparisons and optimization of buildings, but a standard for weighting has not been established. This study investigates the use of monetary valuation of building LCA results as a way to weigh, aggregate, and compare results. A set of six recent German office buildings served as a case study. For these, standard LCA and life cycle cost (LCC) calculations were conducted. Monetary valuation models from the literature were investigated as a basis for evaluation. From these, maximum and minimum valuation was chosen and applied to the LCA results for the embedded impacts of the case study buildings. The buildings’ environmental costs (EC) were thereafter calculated and contributions of single impacts are analyzed. The EC—based on external costs—are subsequently compared with the life cycle costs (LCC)—based on market prices—of the respective buildings. Of the five standard environmental indicators used in Germany, GWP contributes approximately 80 to 95% of the overall EC. Acidification potential (AP) is the second largest contributor with up to 18%. Eutrophication (EP), photochemical oxidization (POCP), and ozone depletion potential (ODP) contribute less than 2.0%, 1.05%, and 2.4E−6% respectively. An additional assessment of the contribution of resource depletion to EC shows an impact at least as large as the impact of GWP. The relation between the EC and LCC strongly depends on the EC model used: if EC are internalized, they add between 1 and 37% to the life cycle costs of the buildings. Varying construction materials for a case study building shows that materials with low GWP have the potential to lower environmental costs significantly without a trade-off in favor of other indicators. Despite their sensitivity to the monetary valuation model used, EC provide an indication that GWP and resource depletion—followed by AP—are the most relevant of the environmental indicators currently considered for the construction industry. Monetary valuation of environmental impacts is a valuable tool for comparisons of different buildings and design options and provides an effective and valuable way of communicating LCA results to stakeholders.

中文翻译：

---

建筑的环境成本：建筑业生态指标的货币估值

建筑生命周期评估 (LCA) 借鉴了许多指标，包括一次能源 (PE) 需求和全球变暖潜能值 (GWP)。构建加权单个指标的综合指数的方法有利于它们在建筑物的比较和优化中的使用，但尚未建立加权标准。本研究调查了使用构建 LCA 结果的货币估值作为衡量、汇总和比较结果的一种方式。一组最近的六座德国办公楼作为案例研究。对于这些，进行了标准 LCA 和生命周期成本 (LCC) 计算。研究了文献中的货币估值模型作为评估的基础。从这些中，选择了最大和最小估值并将其应用于案例研究建筑物的嵌入影响的 LCA 结果。随后计算建筑物的环境成本 (EC)，并分析单一影响的贡献。随后将基于外部成本的 EC 与基于市场价格的各个建筑物的生命周期成本 (LCC) 进行比较。在德国使用的五个标准环境指标中，GWP 贡献了整个 EC 的大约 80% 到 95%。酸化潜力 (AP) 是第二大贡献者，高达 18%。富营养化 (EP)、光化学氧化 (POCP) 和臭氧消耗潜能值 (ODP) 的贡献分别低于 2.0%、1.05% 和 2.4E-6%。对资源枯竭对 EC 贡献的额外评估显示其影响至少与 GWP 的影响一样大。EC 和 LCC 之间的关系很大程度上取决于所使用的 EC 模型：如果 EC 被内化，它们使建筑物的生命周期成本增加了 1% 到 37%。案例研究建筑的不同建筑材料表明，具有低 GWP 的材料有可能显着降低环境成本，而无需权衡其他指标。尽管他们对所使用的货币估值模型很敏感，但 EC 提供了一个迹象，即 GWP 和资源枯竭（其次是 AP）是目前考虑的建筑行业最相关的环境指标。环境影响的货币评估是比较不同建筑和设计方案的宝贵工具，并提供了一种有效且有价值的方式来向利益相关者传达 LCA 结果。案例研究建筑的不同建筑材料表明，具有低 GWP 的材料有可能显着降低环境成本，而无需权衡其他指标。尽管他们对所使用的货币估值模型很敏感，但 EC 提供了一个迹象，即 GWP 和资源枯竭（其次是 AP）是目前考虑的建筑行业最相关的环境指标。环境影响的货币评估是比较不同建筑和设计方案的宝贵工具，并提供了一种有效且有价值的方式来向利益相关者传达 LCA 结果。案例研究建筑的不同建筑材料表明，具有低 GWP 的材料有可能显着降低环境成本，而无需权衡其他指标。尽管他们对所使用的货币估值模型很敏感，但 EC 提供了一个迹象，即 GWP 和资源枯竭（其次是 AP）是目前考虑的建筑行业最相关的环境指标。环境影响的货币评估是比较不同建筑和设计方案的宝贵工具，并提供了一种有效且有价值的方式来向利益相关者传达 LCA 结果。EC 表明 GWP 和资源枯竭（其次是 AP）是目前考虑的与建筑行业最相关的环境指标。环境影响的货币评估是比较不同建筑和设计方案的宝贵工具，并提供了一种有效且有价值的方式来向利益相关者传达 LCA 结果。EC 表明 GWP 和资源枯竭（其次是 AP）是目前考虑的与建筑行业最相关的环境指标。环境影响的货币评估是比较不同建筑和设计方案的宝贵工具，并提供了一种有效且有价值的方式来向利益相关者传达 LCA 结果。