← 論文一覧に戻る

建築ファサード・外装システムのクラドル・トゥ・ゲート埋め込み炭素：系統的レビュー

Cradle-to-Gate Embodied Carbon of Building Facade and Enclosure Systems: A Systematic Review (原題)

Saghar Mohsenian, Tahar Messadi, Amir Mohammad Shadjou, Mahboobeh Hemmati, Moein Hemmati

Buildings📚 査読済 / ジャーナル2026-10-24#炭素会計経営インパクト: 調達リスク対象セクター: construction
DOI: 10.3390/buildings16214219
原典: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16214219
📄 PDF

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

建築ファサード・外装のクラドル・トゥ・ゲート（A1–A3）埋め込み炭素を146研究・800選択肢から系統的に整理したレビュー。システム別中央値は断熱材9.1からBIPV207 kg CO2e/m2に及び、不透明壁は48 kg CO2e/m2。面積当たり報告やバイオ系炭素クレジットの扱いの不統一が比較を妨げており、最小報告チェックリストを提案する。

English

A PRISMA-based systematic review of 146 studies synthesizing cradle-to-gate (A1–A3) embodied carbon for building facades and enclosures. Median GWP ranges from 9.1 kg CO2e/m2 for insulation to 207 kg CO2e/m2 for BIPV, with opaque walls at 48 kg CO2e/m2. Inconsistent per-area reporting and biogenic carbon credit treatment limit comparability, prompting a minimum reporting checklist.

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

建設業はScope 3排出の大宗を占め、SSBJ・有報でのScope 3開示や不動産デベロッパーの調達基準強化が進む日本では、建材・外装の埋め込み炭素を比較可能にする本レビューと報告チェックリストは実務的に有用。

In the global GX context

Embodied carbon in construction is a fast-growing focus under CSRD, ISSB and green building standards (LEED, BREEAM); a harmonized reporting checklist directly supports Scope 3 category 1/2 disclosure and comparable EPD data globally.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:ファサードLCA結果の比較可能性を制約する境界・面積基準・バイオ炭素処理の論点を整理できる。

🏢実務担当者:建材・外装の埋め込み炭素をカテゴリ内・同一境界で比較するための報告チェックリストとして活用できる。

🏛政策担当者:建築物の埋め込み炭素開示やEPD制度設計における最小報告要件の参考になる。

📄 Abstract（原文）

Published life cycle assessment (LCA) results for building facades and enclosures are difficult to compare because of differences in system scope, methods, and reporting. This systematic review synthesizes cradle-to-gate embodied carbon results by system type and assesses their comparability. Following PRISMA 2020, searches of five databases, supplementary searches, and citation tracking (2010 to January 2026) identified 146 studies with 800 options in 13 system types. The primary dataset contained 597 options with strict A1–A3 results per square meter of facade or enclosure. Their median global warming potential (GWP) ranged from 9.1 kg CO2e/m2 for insulation components to 207 kg CO2e/m2 for building-integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) modules. Opaque walls, the largest category (231 options, 52 studies), had a median of 48 kg CO2e/m2. Using one value per study changed medians by less than 4 kg CO2e/m2 in the four largest categories and up to 72 kg CO2e/m2 in smaller ones. Therefore, small-category results are descriptive only. Comparison was limited because one-quarter of options were not reported per facade area or the reporting included stages beyond A1–A3. In addition, for 48% of options containing bio-based materials, studies did not state whether stored carbon was credited. In studies that reported both versions, the credit alone turned 15 of 26 results negative. Values should therefore be compared only within a category and at equivalent performance, boundary, and biogenic carbon treatment. To address these gaps, this review proposes a minimum reporting checklist for consistent and comparable facade LCA results.

🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース

🔔 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。