高密度住宅改修における垂直緑化システムの比較ライフサイクル評価:気候変動下での炭素・熱・水のトレードオフ
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Vertical Greenery Systems in High-Density Residential Retrofits: Carbon, Thermal, and Water Trade-Offs Under Climate Variability (原題)
Yicun Pang, Junxue Zhang, Ashish T. Asutosh, Ge Song
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
高密度住宅改修におけるモジュラー型リビングウォールとグリーンファサードを、素材から廃棄までのLCAで比較した研究。リビングウォールは素材段階のエンボディド炭素が144.42 kgCO2eq/m2とグリーンファサードの10.5倍に達し、炭素回収期間は22.7年(温暖地)・54.7年(寒冷地)と耐用年数20年を超過する。グリーンファサードは3.0年・6.6年で全シナリオを通じ頑健な選択肢と結論づけている。
English
A cradle-to-grave LCA compares modular living walls and green facades in high-density residential retrofits across two climate zones. Living walls carry 144.42 kgCO2eq/m2 embodied carbon (10.5x the facade's 13.74) and carbon payback of 22.7-54.7 years, exceeding the 20-year service life; green facades pay back in 3.0-6.6 years and remain robust across all scenarios. Water-saving irrigation cuts water use 35-45% with minimal payback penalty.
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
都市の脱炭素化・建築物省エネの文脈で、改修時のエンボディド炭素と炭素回収期間を定量的に扱う点は、日本企業のScope 3算定や不動産デベロッパーの改修投資判断に示唆を与える。ただし気候区分・制度前提は中国のもので、日本の省エネ基準やSSBJ開示に直接対応するものではない。
In the global GX context
Adds empirical evidence on embodied carbon and carbon payback for building retrofit measures, relevant to Scope 3 category 1/2 accounting and to disclosure of capital goods emissions under GHG Protocol and ISSB. The staged decision framework and climate-differentiated recommendations offer a template for retrofit appraisal that could inform transition planning in real estate portfolios.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:建築物改修のエンボディド炭素と炭素回収期間の計測手法、特に回収境界の設定が結論を左右する点を参考にできる。
🏢実務担当者:不動産・建設のサステナビリティ担当は、緑化改修の炭素回収期間と水使用のトレードオフを投資判断に組み込む際の定量的根拠として活用できる。
🏛政策担当者:建築物改修の炭素評価において、エンボディド炭素と回収期間の算定境界を規制・ガイドラインで明確化する必要性を示唆する。
📄 Abstract(原文)
Vertical greenery systems are increasingly adopted in high-density residential retrofits, yet existing carbon performance assessments often overlook the embodied carbon of system components, the methodological ambiguity of carbon sequestration boundaries, and the water consumption required for maintenance. This study develops a cradle-to-grave comparative life cycle assessment model to quantify the carbon–thermal–water trade-offs between modular living walls and green facades, applied to two climate regions, hot summer and warm winter and cold, with water-saving irrigation as a moderating variable, testing three research hypotheses. The results show that the embodied carbon at the material stage of the modular living wall reaches 144.42 kgCO2eq/m2, 10.5 times that of the green facade at 13.74 kgCO2eq/m2, dominating the carbon payback gap between the two systems. The modular living wall achieves a carbon payback period of 22.7 years in the hot summer and warm winter region and 54.7 years in the cold region, both exceeding the 20-year reference service life, with exceedance probabilities of 58% and 97%, respectively; the green facade achieves 3.0 and 6.6 years, with 0% exceedance probability in both regions. The carbon sequestration accounting boundary determines whether the modular living wall achieves a net carbon benefit but does not alter the ranking between the two systems. Water-saving irrigation reduces water consumption by 45% and 35% while extending the carbon payback period by only 2.6% and 3.3%, with thermal benefit retention above 93%. The green facade is identified as the robust choice across all scenarios, while the modular living wall requires carbon payback failure risk to be explicitly accepted or mitigated through substrate replacement cycle extension. A staged decision framework and climate-differentiated policy recommendations are proposed.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16204174first seen 2026-10-23 05:12:39 · last seen 2026-11-06 04:47:17
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16204174first seen 2026-10-30 05:45:43 · last seen 2026-11-06 05:44:00
🔔 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。