EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 448 (2023) E3S Web Conf., 448 (2023) 03040 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 448, 2023
The 8th International Conference on Energy, Environment, Epidemiology and Information System (ICENIS 2023)
Article Number 03040
Number of page(s) 10
Section Environment Science
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202344803040
Published online 17 November 2023
  1. C. Mao, Q. Shen, L. Shen, and L. Tang, “Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: Two case studies of residential projects,” Energy Build., vol. 66, pp. 165–176, Nov (2013) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. M. Kamali, K. Hewage, and R. Sadiq, “Conventional versus modular construction methods: A comparative cradle-to-gate LCA for residential buildings,” Energy Build., vol. 204, p. 109479, (2019) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. MBI, “Why Modular?,” Modular Building Institute, 2012. https://www.modular.org/why-modular/ (accessed Apr. 04, 2022). [Google Scholar]
  4. S. Karthik, K. Sharareh, and R. Behzad, “Modular Construction vs. Traditional Construction: Advantages and Limitations: A Comparative Study,” pp. 11–19, (2020) [Google Scholar]
  5. F. Wong and Y. T. Tang, “Comparative Embodied Carbon Analysis of the Prefabrication Elements compared with In-situ Elements in Residential Building Development of Hong Kong,” World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol., vol. 62, pp. 161–166, (2012) [Google Scholar]
  6. J. K. Ofori-Kuragu and R. Osei-Kyei, “Mainstreaming pre-manufactured offsite processes in construction – are we nearly there?,” Constr. Innov., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 743–760, (2021) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. H. Hakim and T. Endangsih, “The application of green building concept through fabrication modular construction system in special house construction,” IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., vol. 878, no. 1, (2021) [Google Scholar]
  8. Kementerian Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral, “Inventarisasi Emisi GRK Bidang Energi,” (2020) [Google Scholar]
  9. H. Pervez, Y. Ali, and A. Petrillo, “A quantitative assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from conventional and modular construction: A case of developing country,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 294, (2021) [Google Scholar]
  10. V. Tavares, N. Lacerda, and F. Freire, “Embodied energy and greenhouse gas emissions analysis of a prefabricated modular house: The ‘Moby’ case study,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 212, pp. 1044–1053, Mar. (2019) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. S. S. Muthu, “Estimating the overall environmental impact of textile processing,” Assess. Environ. Impact Text. Cloth. Supply Chain, pp. 105–129, (2020) [Google Scholar]
  12. F. Torabi and P. Ahmadi, Battery technologies. (2020) [Google Scholar]
  13. Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, “User Manual and Transparency Document - Impact Estimator for Buildings v.5,” no. September, pp. 1-50 [accessed 17.01.15]., (2014). [Google Scholar]
  14. K. Andersson, S. Brynolf, J. F. Lindgren, and M. Wilewska-Bien, “Shipping and the Environment: Improving Environmental Performance in Marine Transportation,” Shipp. Environ. Improv. Environ. Perform. Mar. Transp., pp. 1–426, (2016) [Google Scholar]
  15. J. Monahan and J. C. Powell, “An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern methods of construction in housing: A case study using a lifecycle assessment framework,” Energy Build., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 179–188, (2011) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. EPA, “Overview of Greenhouse Gases,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, (2020). https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases (accessed Apr. 29, 2022). [Google Scholar]
  17. KLHK and Dirjen Pengendalian Perubahan Iklim, “Peraturan Direktur Jenderal Pengendalian Perubahan Iklim Tentang Pedoman Penghitungan Emisi Gas Rumah Kaca Untuk Aksi Mitigasi Perubahan Iklim Berbasis Masyarakat.” (2017). [Google Scholar]
  18. G. Hammond and C. Jones, “Embodied Carbon: The Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE),” A BSRIA Guid., p. 136, (2011) [Google Scholar]
  19. Ecoinvent, “ecoinvent 3.7.” The Ecoinvent Database, (2020) [Google Scholar]
  20. Direktorat Jenderal Ketenagalistrikan KESDM, “Faktor Emisi Gas Rumah Kaca Sistem Ketenagalistrikan 2019,” (2019) [Google Scholar]
  21. H. Yan, Q. Shen, L. C. H. Fan, Y. Wang, and L. Zhang, “Greenhouse gas emissions in building construction: A case study of One Peking in Hong Kong,” Build. Environ., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 949–955, (2010) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Y. Ji, K. Li, G. Liu, A. Shrestha, and J. Jing, “Comparing greenhouse gas emissions of precast in-situ and conventional construction methods,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 173, pp. 124–134, (2018) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. J. Quale, M. J. Eckelman, K. W. Williams, G. Sloditskie, and J. B. Zimmerman, “Construction Matters: Comparing Environmental Impacts of Building Modular and Conventional Homes in the United States,” J. Ind. Ecol., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 243–253, (2012) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.