Comparative Life Cycle Assessment for Environmental Clearance vs Green Building Certification: From Literature Review to Empirical Validation
環境クリアランスとグリーンビルディング認証の比較ライフサイクル評価：文献レビューから実証的検証へ (AI 翻訳)
Tushar Shingane, K. Kale
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
インドの住宅プロジェクト「Bella Vie」を対象に、環境クリアランス（EC）とグリーンビルディング認証（GBC）のLCA結果を比較。ECは10種の材料、GBCは150種以上の材料を用い、床面積あたりで57%の差（GBCは489kg CO₂e/m²、ECは311kg CO₂e/m²）が生じた。差の主因はシステム境界ではなく材料リストの詳細度にあり、ECにはガラスやアルミフレームが含まれていなかった。
English
Using a real residential project in Pune, India, this study compares Life Cycle Assessment results from mandatory Environmental Clearance (EC) and voluntary Green Building Certification (GBC). The GBC method, following LEED v4.1 with over 150 material items, yielded 489 kg CO₂e/m², while the EC method with only 10 material types gave 311 kg CO₂e/m²—a 57% difference. The discrepancy stems from the level of material detail, not system boundaries, highlighting the need for more detailed material lists in EC regulations.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本では建築物の環境負荷評価にCASBEEや各種認証制度が存在するが、本論文が示す義務的評価と任意認証の差異は、日本の建築規制（建築基準法や省エネ法）と、グリーンビルディング認証（CASBEEやBELSなど）の間でも同様に生じる可能性がある。詳細な材料リストの重要性は、日本のLCA実務にも示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
This paper provides empirical evidence that mandatory environmental impact assessments can significantly underestimate carbon footprints compared to voluntary certification schemes due to insufficient material detail. Globally, this finding challenges the adequacy of current regulatory LCA frameworks and supports arguments for aligning mandatory reporting with voluntary certification standards like LEED or BREEAM.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Demonstrates that LCA outcome discrepancies are driven by data granularity rather than methodological choices, informing future LCA study designs.
🏢実務担当者:Highlights the business risk of relying on simplified LCA for regulatory compliance, as it may underestimate environmental impacts and miss optimization opportunities.
🏛政策担当者:Suggests that mandatory environmental clearance regulations should require material-level detail similar to green building certification to ensure accurate impact assessment.
📄 Abstract（原文）
India has two systems to check building environmental impact. One is mandatory – Environmental Clearance (EC). The other is voluntary – Green Building Certification (GBC). Earlier studies said the two methods can give 20‑35% different results for the same building. But those studies mostly used made‑up data. Data for this study were collected from a real residential project, Bella Vie, located in Pune. Based on the collected project information, two Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) reports were developed to evaluate and compare the environmental impact of the building materials. The EC report used only 10 material types. The GBC report followed LEED v4.1 and used over 150 material items. Both were done with One Click LCA software, following ISO 14040/44 and EN 15978.The GBC report gave 1,086,896 kg CO₂e for the building shell (cradle to grave). The EC report gave 614,650 kg CO₂e for construction materials. After converting to per square meter, the GBC method gave 489 kg CO₂e/m². The EC method gave 311 kg CO₂e/m². That is a 57% difference. The main reason is not system boundaries. It is the level of detail. The EC list missed glazing and aluminium frames. Those two items alone made up 17.8% of the GBC carbon. EC rules should ask for a detailed material list, just like GBC does
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.25258/ijddt.16.50s.101first seen 2026-06-29 07:06:32
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。