Akinkunmi Samuel Adesiji1, Kamaldeen Abidemi Jimoh2, Hassan Junior Ajibode3, Prayer Atumah4, Oluwafemi Jeremiah Oluwasanmi5, Oluwatoyin Felicia Olubambo6, Micheal Abimbola Oladosu7 and Moses Adondua Abah8

 1Department of Quantity Surveying, School of Environmental Technology, Federal University of Technology Minna, Niger State, Nigeria.

2Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Kwara State University, Malete, Kwara State, Nigeria.

3Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology

Kwara State University, Nigeria

4Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, University of Benin, Edo State, Nigeria.

5Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering and Engineering Technology,

Federal University of Technology Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria.

6Department of Project Management, Faculty of Management Sciences, Bells University of Technology, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria.

7Department of Chemical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Anchor University, Ayobo, Ipaja, Lagos, Nigeria.

8Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences, Federal University of Wukari, Wukari, Taraba State, Nigeria

() Corresponding Author

Received: Apr 20, 2026/ Revised: June 3 2026/Accepted: June 9, 2026

 Abstract

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has become a foundational methodology for quantifying environmental impacts of buildings across their entire lifespan, from material extraction and construction through operational use to end-of-life demolition and waste management. Despite growing adoption in both research and practice, the field remains characterized by inconsistent system boundary definitions, climate zone-specific data gaps, and limited integration of emerging computational methods. This paper critically synthesises peer-reviewed literature published between 2020 and 2025, drawing on over 40 studies spanning North America, Europe, Asia, and Australasia. Through comparative analysis of LCA tools, metrics, and methodological frameworks, this review identifies a paradigm shift from purely operational carbon accounting towards holistic whole-building LCA (WBLCA) that foregrounds embodied carbon. Key findings reveal that embodied carbon can constitute 40–85% of total lifecycle GHG emissions in well-insulated buildings, yet it remains systematically underrepresented in regulatory frameworks. Emerging technologies,  including BIM-integrated LCA, machine learning–augmented impact prediction, and dynamic temporal LCA,  show considerable promise but face barriers related to data quality, methodological standardisation, and scalability. Climate zone sensitivity emerges as a critical yet underexplored moderating variable, with tropical and arid-zone buildings exhibiting distinctly different lifecycle carbon profiles compared to temperate and cold-climate counterparts. Five critical research gaps are identified, and a future research roadmap is proposed that prioritises harmonised global protocols, real-time IoT-enabled LCA monitoring, and circular economy integration. The findings carry direct implications for net-zero building policy, green building rating systems, and procurement standards worldwide.

Keywords: life cycle assessment; embodied carbon; whole-building LCA; climate zone; BIM-LCA integration; net-zero buildings; sustainable construction

How to cite this article

Adesiji, A. S., Jimoh, K. A., Ajibode, H. J., Atumah, P., Oluwasamni, O. J., Olubambo, O. F., Oladosu, M. A., & Abah, M. A. (2026). Life cycle assessment frameworks for sustainable buildings: Tools, metrics, and comparative global case studies from construction to demolition across climate zones. Science Archives, 7(2), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.47587/SA.2026.7221

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

 

View Details