Article

pubs.acs.org/est

Embodied Energy of Construction Materials: Integrating Human and

Capital Energy into an IO-Based Hybrid Model
Manish K. Dixit,*,† Charles H. Culp,‡ and Jose L. Fernandez-Solis‡
†
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas 77340, United States
‡
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, United States
*
S Supporting Information

ABSTRACT: Buildings alone consume approximately 40% of

Downloaded by PONTIFICIA UNIV CATOLICA DEL PERU at 16:45:18:505 on June 04, 2019

the annual global energy and contribute indirectly to the

increasing concentration of atmospheric carbon. The total life
cycle energy use of a building is composed of embodied and
operating energy. Embodied energy includes all energy
required to manufacture and transport building materials,
and construct, maintain, and demolish a building. For a
systemic energy and carbon assessment of buildings, it is
from https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es503896v.

critical to use a whole life cycle approach, which takes into

account the embodied as well as operating energy. Whereas the
calculation of a building’s operating energy is straightforward,
there is a lack of a complete embodied energy calculation
method. Although an input−output-based (IO-based) hybrid
method could provide a complete and consistent embodied energy calculation, there are unresolved issues, such as an
overdependence on price data and exclusion of the energy of human labor and capital inputs. This paper proposes a method for
calculating and integrating the energy of labor and capital input into an IO-based hybrid method. The results demonstrate that
the IO-based hybrid method can provide relatively complete results. Also, to avoid errors, the total amount of human and capital
energy should not be excluded from the calculation.

1. INTRODUCTION
As a result of rising consumption of fossil fuel-based energy
sources, the amount of carbon emissions in the atmosphere has
increased radically.1−3 Most of this emission originates from
fossil fuel combustion in transportation, construction, manu-
facturing, and residential and commercial operations.4−6 The
global construction industry, on the average, consumes
approximately 40% of the world’s energy each year and
contributes to carbon emission significantly.7−9 According to
the USEPA,10 buildings alone contribute to nearly 40% of the
United States’ annual carbon emissions by consuming electricity
and natural gas in their operation. A building consumes energy in
two ways: (1) through the use of construction materials,
products, and processes during its construction, maintenance,
and demolition, and (2) in its operation during the occupancy
phase.11−13 Each material or product installed in a building has
consumed some amount of energy when it was manufactured
and delivered to end users. Similarly, each process of
construction, fabrication, transportation, and administration
during the building’s life cycle also consumes energy.11,12,14,15
The total energy consumed by a building over its life cycle
through the use of materials, products, and processes is called its
life cycle embodied energy. Once the building is complete and
occupied, the total energy expended in air-conditioning, heating,
lighting, and powering building appliances is termed operating
energy.9,13,15 The total life cycle energy use of a building is the
sum of life cycle embodied and operating energy.16
The calculation of a building’s operating energy is relatively
straightforward compared to embodied energy, which lacks
consistent, complete, and accurate data.9,17−19 This lack of an
established embodied energy database also impedes the
application of a life cycle-based environmental evaluation to
the building design and construction industry. Among key
challenges to establishing a complete and consistent embodied
energy database is the lack of a globally accepted embodied
energy calculation method.9 There are various embodied energy
calculation methods that use process, input−output (IO), or
hybrid data.11−13 Although each method has advantages and
disadvantages, an IO-based hybrid analysis is currently
considered the most appropriate method. However, some issues
with the reliability of its results have been highlighted in the
literature.11−13 In the past, improvements to the IO-based hybrid
analysis enhanced its reliability, as noted by Treloar,11 Joshi,20
and Crawford.12 Despite these efforts, there remains potential for
further improvement.12,13,21 Issues such as the overdependence
on product price data, sector aggregation, and the lack of an
Received: August 12, 2014
Revised: December 31, 2014
Accepted: January 5, 2015
Published: January 5, 2015

© 2015 American Chemical Society 1936 DOI: 10.1021/es503896v

Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1936−1945
Environmental Science & Technology
approach to integrate capital and labor inputs still need to be
addressed.9,12,21
In this paper, we propose an approach to calculate the human
and capital energy and integrate them into an IO-based hybrid
framework developed for the United States’ economy. The aim
of this paper is to enable a life cycle carbon assessment of a
building by calculating the embodied energy of construction
materials in a complete manner (covering the energy embodied
in labor and capital inputs). We also analyze the results to
investigate whether the energy embodied in human and capital
inputs is insignificant.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Embodied Energy Model for a Building. The total
energy embodied in a building over its service life is composed of
its initial embodied energy (IEE), recurrent embodied energy
(REE), and demolition energy (DE) as shown in Figure S1
(Supporting Information, SI).13,14,22 When a building is
constructed, energy is consumed directly in processes such as
construction, transportation, and administration. At this stage,
energy is also consumed indirectly through the use of
construction materials and pieces of building equipment installed
in the building. The total energy embodied in constructing and
delivering the building for occupancy is termed IEE.16,23,24 A
major fraction of IEE comes from building material use.25−27
When building materials are extracted, processed, manufactured,
packaged, and delivered, they have already consumed some
energy.28−30 For instance, commonly used building materials,
such as cement, steel, aluminum, and insulation, are highly
energy intensive.31,32 The total energy consumed in extracting,
processing, manufacturing, and delivering a building material is
called its embodied energy.12,13,15
Once the building is occupied, it is maintained, refurbished,
and some of its components are replaced. All such activities
involve the use of construction materials and processes.33 The
sum of all energy expended in maintenance, repair, refurbish-
ment, and replacement activities is REE.7,19,23 The amount of
REE depends on material and equipment selection and the
service life of a building.25,34 For instance, selecting a durable
product with a low maintenance requirement would lower the
value of REE.16,23 Because REE is time dependent, the longer the
service life of a component, the larger the value of life cycle REE
for a building.16,26 When the building reaches the end of its
service life, it is demolished and demolition waste is sorted and
hauled for recycling, reuse, or disposal. The total energy
consumed at this end-of-life stage is known as DE.14,22,27 For a
comprehensive carbon assessment of buildings, it is critical that a
net embodied energy value is calculated by taking into account
any recovery through reuse and recycle, particularly at the end-
of-life phase.35
2.2. Embodied Energy Calculation Methods. There are
three commonly used methods for calculating embodied energy:
(1) process-based, (2) IO-based, and (3) hybrid analyses. Each of
the three methods has limitations based upon the type and
availability of data it uses. Because the three methods also differ in
the extent to which their system boundaries cover the energy
inputs, their results are not comparable.9,19 A process-based
embodied energy calculation is a bottom-up approach, which
starts with the building material as a final product and goes
backward (upstream) to include as many direct and indirect
energy inputs as possible.11−13,36−38 Most direct energy use data
comes from the material manufacturers. An IO-based embodied
energy calculation utilizes the national IO accounts, which
1937
Article
provide the flow of goods and services in monetary units among
various industry sectors.11,12,21 The national IO accounts are
published periodically at a summary or detailed level.39 For
calculating embodied energy, a square matrix of direct require-
ment coefficients is used, which presents the input directly
required to produce a unit of output for a particular industry
sector. The direct requirements are accompanied by indirect
requirements.40 For example, when an industry sector “C”
increases its output by $1, its input providing sectors (e.g., “M”
and “E”) must increase their output proportionally. This stage of
indirect impacts is labeled stage one. To meet the increased
output, sectors “M” and “E” exert pressure on their input
supplying sectors to increase their output resulting in stage 2
indirect inputs. Similarly, there are stage three indirect inputs and
so on. Therefore, the impact of raising industry output by $1 can
be felt throughout the economy.40 This economy-wide impact
represents indirect requirements.40 A detailed description of the
method can be found in Treloar11 and Dixit.41 One major
advantage of an IO-based calculation is that it covers most energy
inputs to provide a relatively complete calculation.12,15,21
However, its results are for an aggregated industry sector that
manufactures a wide range of products. In the IO method, all
products would have the same energy intensity, which may not
be true.11,12,15
There are two types of hybrid analyses: (1) process-based and
(2) IO-based. In a process-based hybrid analysis, the basic
framework remains process-based. To improve its completeness,
IO data are inserted into the framework.36,38 For instance, to
calculate the embodied energy of a house, the actual quantities of
materials used are collected from the bill of quantities. These
material quantities are then multiplied by their respective IO-
based embodied energy intensities to calculate the total
embodied energy of the house.11,12 In an IO-based hybrid
analysis, the process data of direct energy use are collected and
inserted into an IO-based framework.11,12,21 The process data
replace comparable IO-data in the framework.11 The basic
assumption is that including more process data results in a more
reliable model. The replacement of IO data with process data can
be accomplished in many ways. For instance, if energy use data
are available for all industry sectors, they can be incorporated
directly into the IO model.42 If direct energy data are available
only for a few sectors, then incorporating them into the IO model
may cause unwanted indirect impacts.11 Treloar11 proposed a
method for integrating energy use data into the economic model.
This method involves the identification and extraction of direct
energy paths from the IO model in order to integrate the study-
specific process data to avoid any unwanted indirect effects.11
According to Treloar,11 the incompleteness or error in typical
embodied energy calculation and analysis is approximately 20%
and, thus, no method provides accurate results. However, an IO-
based hybrid analysis is considered more complete and
consistent than other existing methods.8
2.3. Embodied Energy Calculation: Major Issues.
2.3.1. Incompleteness and Inconsistency. Among the key
parameters causing incompleteness and inconsistency are system
boundary definition and data quality.13,19 A system boundary
demarcates the energy inputs that are included in an embodied
energy calculation.14,43−45 In most studies, the system boundary
is defined subjectively since there are no system boundary
definition guidelines.14,46 The results of such studies are not
comparable and, therefore, cannot be used.17,18 Data quality is
another parameter responsible for the incompleteness and
inconsistency of embodied energy values.14 Studies often use
DOI: 10.1021/es503896v
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1936−1945
Environmental Science & Technology
data that are either nonrepresentative or secondary. A detailed
discussion can be found in Dixit et al.13
2.3.2. Lack of a Standardized Comprehensive Calculation
Method. The second big challenge to creating a consistent and
complete embodied energy database is the lack of a globally
accepted calculation method that provides specific and complete
results.9,19,47 A method’s accuracy relates to the specificity of the
calculation. If a calculation approach provides embodied energy
values specific to the product under study, the calculation is
considered more accurate than one that provides aggregated
results. Completeness is governed by the extent to which most
energy inputs are covered by the system boundary.14 Some
energy inputs, such as energy of labor, capital equipment, and
services, if not included in the calculation, could cause serious
incompleteness.12,14 For instance, the choice between process-
based and IO-based methods depends on how well a method
provides complete and study-specific results.
2.3.3. Process Data Integration. The reliability of the IO-
based embodied energy results can be improved by integrating
process data of energy use. Studies such as Treloar11 and
Crawford12 improved the IO-based hybrid method incremen-
tally. Treloar11 suggested systematically extracting IO data from
an IO model and replacing them with process data of actual
energy use. Treloar11 also highlighted the problem of double
counting of energy sources in an IO-based method and
recommended keeping all energy and nonenergy inputs to
energy providing sectors at zero, using primary energy factors
(PEFs) instead. A PEF represents the total primary energy
consumed and lost in delivering end-use energy such as
electricity. The PEF should be calculated by accounting for all
direct and indirect energy use.48,49 In Treloar,11 it is assumed that
the process data of direct energy use are calculated in a complete
manner; incompleteness may leave gaps in the calculation. Also,
it is assumed that PEF values incorporate all direct and indirect
energy use of energy source generation and distribution. If the
values of PEFs are obtained from a secondary source, they need
to be used with caution. Crawford12 identified an issue with
Treloar’s approach and proposed that, instead of extracting a
direct energy path, the total energy path should be removed.
However, when the total energy paths are removed and replaced
with process data of direct energy use, there may remain some
incompleteness. Acquaye21 analyzed the proposed approaches
and opted for direct energy path extraction.
2.3.4. Use of Price Data in IO-Based Analysis. Most IO-based
methods involve the use of price data to convert direct and
indirect energy flows from monetary to energy units. If energy
prices are inflated or deflated, a serious error in the calculation
may occur.11 Furthermore, the energy intensities obtained from
IO-based methods are in energy units/monetary unit (e.g.,
MBtu/$) and, therefore, require product prices to convert them
to energy units/unit of mass or volume.12,15 This excessive
dependence on price data can be problematic, particularly if
reliable sector-specific prices are not available.21 The improve-
ments suggested by Trealor11 and Crawford12 still involve the
use of prices multiple times which could introduce large errors
even if the prices are slightly off the actual values.21
2.3.5. Sector Aggregation. Because an IO framework is used
in an IO-based hybrid method, the embodied energy intensities
are obtained for an aggregated sector producing a wide range of
products including the material under study. Such results for an
aggregated sector lack specificity.9,11 In addition, manufacturing
technology differs across products and using aggregated
intensities may not be accurate. Joshi20 recommended an
1938
Article
approach to desegregate industry sectors in order to calculate
product-specific energy intensities.
2.3.6. Human and Capital Inputs. Another major issue with
the IO-based hybrid calculation is its inability to account for
inputs such as human labor and capital investment.14,50 Current
embodied energy methods fail to include the human and capital
energy component of total embodied energy.50−54 Studies
(Langston and Langston;52 Pulselli et al.55) have emphasized a
need to incorporate human energy into embodied energy
analysis. However, this is often not accomplished due to the lack
of a clear human energy calculation method.56 There needs to be
a system to apportion the household consumption that is
counted toward human labor.50,57 In 1978, Costanza58 quantified
the energy embodied in labor and government services by
making the household sector endogenous to the conventional IO
model. However, Cleveland50 argued that Costanza58 allocated
entire household income to employment, which may not be
accurate. Cleveland50 identified three energy components that
should be accounted for when quantifying human energy: (1) the
calorific value of food consumed by workers, (2) the embodied
energy of food, and (3) fuel purchased by workers. To apportion
human energy toward employment, Cleveland50 suggested
comparing an earner’s expenditure to that of a nonearner.
Each industry sector of an economy requires considerable
investment in capital goods in addition to labor. Capital goods
include all building and nonbuilding structures such as
administration buildings, warehouses, workshops, electrical
yards, loading and unloading areas, etc.59 The construction of
these structures is energy intensive and this energy use should be
treated as capital energy.14,60 Industry sectors also make
purchases of a range of equipment, software, and automobiles,
which also consume energy during their manufacturing or
construction, delivery, and installation.12,50,58 Because the
detailed IO accounts are not published annually, some capital
expenditures that occur in a year other than the year of the
detailed IO accounts may not show up in the IO table and may
remain excluded from the calculation.11,12,15
3. RESEARCH GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
This paper aims at improving the completeness of an IO-based
hybrid method. The main goal of this study is to propose a
human and capital energy calculation approach, integrate it into
an improved IO-based hybrid method, and calculate embodied
energy of commonly used construction materials. Additionally,
we calculate embodied energy intensities in energy units/$
output, thereby avoiding the use of energy prices. We also
calculate embodied energy values using the traditional IO
method to compare results. We also quantify the contribution of
human and capital energy to the total embodied energy. The
research goal is accomplished by achieving the following
objectives:
• Construct an IO model for the United States’ economy
• Gather and refine the data of actual energy use by various
industry sectors and integrate them into the IO model to
develop an IO-based hybrid model
• Calculate human and capital energy values and insert them
into the IO-based hybrid model
• Calculate and compare embodied energy using IO and IO-
based hybrid methods with and without human and capital
energy
DOI: 10.1021/es503896v
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1936−1945
Environmental Science & Technology
4. RESEARCH METHODS
4.1. Hybrid IO Model. Although numerous approaches exist
for integrating process data into an IO model, we used the
approach proposed by Carter et al.42 In this approach, the energy
inputs in monetary units are replaced with the process data of
actual energy use in energy units. This way, the calculated values
of direct and total requirement coefficients are obtained in
energy unit/$, omitting the need to use energy prices. We used
the 2002 U.S. Benchmark Accounts for constructing the IO
model. A detailed description of the model development can be
found in Section 1 of the SI. We used MBtu/lb as the functional
unit to make the calculation and analysis simpler. However, these
values can be translated into the units of volume using
appropriate material densities. Because of varying material
density, the functional properties of each material per unit of
mass would be different. Consequently, the material require-
ments in the unit of volume would also vary. The calculated
values can be converted from English units (kBtu/lb) to SI units
(MJ/kg) by multiplying with 2.326.
4.2. Primary Energy Factor (PEF) Calculation. To avoid
the double counting of energy inputs, we adopted the approach
proposed by Treloar11 and calculated the primary energy factors
(PEFs) for all five energy-providing sectors: (1) oil and gas
extraction, (2) natural gas distribution, (3) coal mining, (4),
petroleum refineries, and (5) electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution. A detailed description of PEF
calculation is available in Section 2 of the SI. A more detailed
explanation of PEF calculation methods can also be referred from
Dixit et al.16
4.3. Human Energy Calculation. We used the approach
suggested by FAO61 to calculate the total energy expenditure
(TEE) of an average human body. Three types of data were
sourced to quantify TEE of an average working employee in the
United States. First, the average range of weight and age by
gender was gathered from BLS62,63 and Borrud et al.64 to
calculate the basal metabolic rate (BMR) values. Next, an hourly
activity schedule of a typical day of an employee was developed.
The number of total employees was sourced from USBEA65 and
USCB.66 Finally, the physical activity ratio (PAR) values of the
activities of employee were quantified to calculate an average
physical activity level (PAL). The activity hours and PAR values
were based on FAO61 and the American Time Use Survey Data
for 2003 from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics
(USBLS).67 The TEE was calculated as
TEE = BMR × PAL
The value of BMR is dependent on the age and body weight of
a person and was calculated as follows: 61
Males, age 18−30 years
BMR = 0.063 × Wtbd + 2.896
Males, age 30−60 years
BMR = 0.048 × Wtbd + 3.653
Females, age 18−30 years
BMR = 0.062 × Wtbd + 2.036
Females, age 30−60 years
BMR = 0.034 × Wtbd + 3.538
where Wtbd is the body weight of a worker in kg. The TEE values
were calculated for both male and female employees separately
and were then averaged using their percent share in the total
1939
Article
employment (according to BLS63). Finally, the value of TEE per
hour per employee was calculated. The total number of
employees was sourced from the USCB,66,68,69 USBLS,70
USDA (NASS71), and USDOC.72 A more detailed explanation
of calculation can be referred from Dixit.40
4.3.1. Apportioning Personal Consumption. The trans-
portation energy data for 2002 were sourced from the USDOT.73
Not all personal transportation is used for work-related purposes.
The Federal Highway Administration (USDOT) published data
on work-related trips for the years 1983, 1990, 1995, 2001, and
2009 (Santos et al.74), which showed the percentage of work-
related trips consistently between 22 and 30%. On the basis of
these data, we apportioned 27% of the total personal trips toward
employment. Similarly, all consumer expenditure cannot be
assigned to the industry of employment. The USBLS provided
the consumer expenditure for single and more than 2 consumers
under the category of no earner and one earner (BLS75).
Excluding the food and utilities expenses, the difference between
the earner and nonearner for single and multiple consumers was
in the range of 26−35%. An average of 30% of the total personal
consumption expenditure (excluding food, utilities, and trans-
portation) was allocated to the industry of employment as
suggested by Cleveland.50 The personal consumption expendi-
ture data were sourced from the USBEA’s 2002 Benchmark
Input-Output Accounts. To account for the energy embodied in
personal consumption items, the 2002 Benchmark Input-Output
direct and total requirements tables were used.76 The residential
energy consumption data for electricity, natural gas, and
petroleum were sourced from the 2002 Annual Energy Review
to account for the household energy use.
4.4. Capital Energy Calculation. Although the USBEA
publishes capital flow data as supporting information to the
benchmark accounts, the latest data were from 1997, and hence,
could not be utilized for quantifying capital inputs in 2002. Data
relating to capital expenditures of various industries were
collected from diverse sources such as the USDOC,59 USCB,77
USBEA,78,79 USDA,80 and USCB.81 IO-based hybrid energy
intensities were used to calculate average energy intensities of
capital products. The energy intensities were averaged on the
basis of relative share of capital inputs in the total net change in
the fixed assets’ value at the end of 2002. For instance, capital
inputs under the structures category included a wide range of
residential (e.g., single and multifamily) and nonresidential
buildings (e.g., healthcare, commercial, and manufacturing
buildings) belonging to different industry sectors, and energy
intensities of those were averaged using their % share in total
capital inputs in buildings. Likewise, the equipment category
included a variety of equipment such as computers, printing and
metalwork machinery, and electrical and mechanical equipment,
etc., which were used to calculate an average energy intensity.
Tables S1 and S2 in the SI show the breakdown of the structure
and equipment categories with their average energy intensities
and percent share in the total capital expenditure.
5. FINDINGS
5.1. Human and Capital Energy. The total energy
embodied in household expenditure of an average employee in
the United States in 2002 was calculated as 45.7 MBtu (excluding
work-related personal transport and food). The total energy
consumed by an average employee was found to be 78.8 MBtu.
This energy use included the energy of food (4%), consumables
(31%), residential energy use (27%), and all work-related
personal transportation (38%). On the basis of these results, the
DOI: 10.1021/es503896v
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1936−1945
Environmental Science & Technology Article

Table 1. Embodied Energy of Materials under Study

IO-based hybrid + human and capital
conventional IO-based method IO-based hybrid method energy
embodied energy (A) (B − A)/A embodied energy (B) (C − B)/B
study material (kBtu/lb) (%) (kBtu/lb) (%) embodied energy (C) (kBtu/lb)
carpet (3/8 in. thick), level loop 235.25 −3 228.21 6 242.10
wood lumber 2.19 11 2.42 11 2.70
hardwood plywood & veneer 11.54 21 13.95 9 15.19
softwood plywood & veneer 3.01 21 3.64 9 3.97
paints & coatings 28.99 −21 22.82 6 24.12
adhesives 56.16 −61 21.64 6 23.00
plastic pipes & fittings 42.23 11 46.86 4 48.74
polystyrene foam insulation 104.84 0 104.70 5 110.12
bricks 2.07 −24 1.57 6 1.66
clay wall & floor tiles (1/4 in. thick) 18.99 −24 14.38 6 15.20
vitrified clay sewer pipes 8.39 −24 6.36 6 6.72
flat glass 10.60 −3 10.29 3 10.62
cement 1.91 64 3.13 3 3.23
concrete 0.46 20 0.54 7 0.58
gypsum, bldg. products 9.05 12 10.12 3 10.38
lime 1.67 12 1.87 3 1.92
stone 1.31 −7 1.22 17 1.43
mineral wool insulation 11.83 1 11.90 6 12.60
virgin steel 10.41 −3 10.11 3 10.39
primary aluminum 29.19 172 79.30 1 80.17
copper 18.76 31 24.67 4 25.77

Table 2. Share of Each Energy Source in Total Embodied Energy

% of various energy sources in total embodied energy
study material oil and gas coal electricity natural gas petroleum human energy capital energy
carpet (3/8 in. thick), level loop 1.60 4.21 36.35 23.11 29.00 3.55 2.18
wood lumber 1.35 0.81 27.33 10.46 49.76 5.85 4.44
hardwood plywood & veneer 1.20 1.12 32.94 14.01 42.58 5.13 3.01
softwood plywood & veneer 1.20 1.12 32.94 14.01 42.58 5.13 3.01
paints & coatings 2.76 4.45 23.87 21.67 41.88 2.75 2.62
adhesives 2.53 4.66 26.02 21.49 39.37 3.13 2.80
plastic pipes & fittings 3.27 2.12 23.26 20.15 47.34 1.84 2.02
polystyrene foam insulation 2.56 3.07 24.34 24.61 40.48 2.62 2.31
bricks 0.31 2.14 23.20 51.91 17.02 2.96 2.46
clay wall & floor tiles (1/4 in. thick) 0.31 2.14 23.20 51.91 17.02 2.96 2.46
vitrified clay sewer pipes 0.31 2.14 23.20 51.91 17.02 2.96 2.46
glass 0.28 1.18 28.36 55.97 11.10 1.47 1.65
cement 0.22 38.30 28.16 6.03 24.37 0.71 2.21
concrete 0.41 21.05 24.28 14.61 32.98 3.12 3.54
gypsum, bldg. products 0.30 22.49 18.50 26.56 29.65 1.21 1.28
lime 0.30 22.49 18.50 26.56 29.65 1.21 1.28
stone 0.72 3.76 33.64 17.11 30.27 9.27 5.23
mineral wool insulation 0.52 3.82 39.01 35.55 15.54 2.45 3.10
virgin steel 0.18 26.43 38.07 24.70 7.91 1.52 1.19
primary aluminum 3.54 0.48 64.69 9.17 21.04 0.58 0.50
copper 0.13 6.29 51.09 26.96 11.24 2.19 2.09

total energy embodied in human inputs was equal to
approximately 11 quadrillion Btu.
The total energy embodied in capital inputs such as structures,
equipment, and software incurred during 2002 was calculated as
11.5 quadrillion Btu. The share of capital structures and
equipment/software in total capital energy was approximately
46% and 54%, respectively. Interestingly, all primary energy
supplying sectors had more capital energy under the category of
structures or buildings, whereas the equipment and software
category dominated the capital energy use of secondary energy
1940
sectors. Tables S3 and S4 in the SI list the top 9 sectors with
higher human and capital energy use.
5.2. Embodied Energy of Construction Materials. Table
1 lists the calculated values of embodied energy of 21 commonly
used construction materials. As shown in Table 1, the embodied
energy values of adhesives, cement, aluminum, and copper
calculated by the conventional IO-based method were quite
different from those quantified using an IO-based hybrid
approach. Surprisingly, the IO-based hybrid embodied energy
of aluminum and cement was over 2.5 and 1.5 times their IO-
DOI: 10.1021/es503896v
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1936−1945
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 1. IO-Based hybrid embodied energy comparison.
based values, respectively. There was minimal difference in IO-
based hybrid and IO-based embodied energy values of
polystyrene foam, mineral wool, and concrete. The inclusion of
human and capital energy inputs in the embodied energy
calculation increased the IO-based hybrid embodied energy
values by 1−17%. Among the most human and capital energy
intensive construction materials were stone, wood, and plywood
products. The least human and capital energy use was for
aluminum production. Among the top three energy-intensive
materials were carpet, polystyrene foam, and aluminum. Among
the materials with low embodied energy were concrete, stone,
brick, and lime.
Table 2 provides the relative share of each energy source in the
total embodied energy of construction materials. A clear
dominance of electricity, natural gas, and petroleum was seen
when the total embodied energy was broken down by energy
source. Among the most electricity-consuming materials were
carpet (88 kBtu/lb) and aluminum (52 kBtu/lb). Industry
sectors producing products such as plastic fittings and pipes and
polystyrene insulation use petroleum products as feedstock
materials. These sectors were among the most petroleum-
consuming sectors. Surprisingly, carpet remained the most fossil-
fuel consuming material. Energy intensities broken down by
energy sources are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, which show the
results of IO-based hybrid and conventional IO-based methods,
respectively. Interestingly, the IO-based electricity intensity of
aluminum was approximately 1/12th of its IO-based hybrid
value. Human and capital energy was found to be much smaller
1941
Article
than the fossil fuel-based energy sources. Carpet was the most
human (8.6 kBtu/lb) and capital energy (5.3 kBtu/lb) intensive
material. Human and capital energy contributed to over 9% and
5% of the total embodied energy of stone, respectively.
Figure 3 illustrates the percentage of direct and indirect energy
in the total energy of construction materials. Manufacturing
construction materials such as carpets, paints and coatings,
adhesives, plastic products, concrete, and copper consumed
more indirect than direct energy (72−92% indirect energy).
Other materials, such as bricks, clay tiles, clay pipes, glass,
cement, lime, and gypsum, used relatively lower indirect energy
(11−27%). The embodied energy of all wood-based con-
struction materials included approximately 46−51% of indirect
energy.
6. DISCUSSION
The energy embodied in labor and capital inputs was quantified
using approaches suggested by published studies. However, there
were a number of assumptions made when apportioning
personal consumption expenditure toward employment and
disaggregating capital expenditure in the categories of structures,
equipment, and software. More reliable data are needed to
reliably compute human and capital inputs. Overall, human
energy contributed to approximately 1−9% of the total
embodied energy of the studied construction materials. Although
this percentage seems insignificant and confirms the assertion
that human energy could be negligible, for a building with
excessive use of stone and wood-based materials, the total human
DOI: 10.1021/es503896v
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1936−1945
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 2. Conventional IO-based embodied energy comparison.
Figure 3. Share of direct and indirect component in total embodied energy.
energy embodied could be much higher. Similarly, capital energy
was calculated as 1−5%, which was insignificant compared to
other fossil fuel-based energy sources. Collectively, human and
1942
Article
capital energy could contribute from 1 to 14% of total embodied
energy. Excluding the energy of labor and capital investment
from embodied energy calculation could cause incompleteness in
DOI: 10.1021/es503896v
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1936−1945
Environmental Science & Technology
the range of 1−17% at a material level (see Table 1). This
incompleteness could be more at a building level depending
upon the type and quantity of materials used. Whereas this study
focuses on the United States, the results could be much different
if calculated for countries such as India and China with more
labor-intensive economies.
The total embodied energy calculation results of the IO-based
hybrid method were quite different from the conventional IO-
based values, particularly for industry sectors with higher
electricity use. One main reason for this may be the use of PEF
(4.12 times for electricity) for converting secondary energy to
primary energy, which also takes into account transmission and
distribution losses. Also, the calculated values of PEFs for coal,
natural gas, and refined petroleum included energy use and losses
that may not show up in annual IO accounts, as no monetary
transaction occurs for such onsite energy use or loss. The
embodied energy results demonstrated that carpet was the most
energy-intensive material, particularly in the fossil fuel category.
This was due to the heavy use of synthetic materials in its
production, such as nylon, polyester, PVC, and adhesives having
a higher embodied energy. As discussed in the earlier section,
materials such as carpets, polystyrene, plastic pipes and fittings,
paints and coatings, and adhesives showed a higher petroleum
product use (10−70 kBtu/lb) probably due to their use of it as
feedstock material. Such high feedstock energy use was visible in
a higher percentage of indirect energy (72−92%) of these
materials as seen in Figure 3. Materials that require relatively less
energy-intensive ingredients such as clay, sand, and limestone,
showed relatively lower percentage of indirect energy use (11−
21%). For instance, clay products that are made of clay, a
relatively less energy-intensive material, held a lower indirect
energy (16%). Similarly, glass and cement showed 21% and 11%
of indirect energy, respectively, due to the use of ingredients with
less embodied energy such as silica and limestone. The embodied
energy results for cement and concrete were interesting. Because
cement, a material with higher embodied energy, is one of the
main constituent materials of concrete, the indirect energy of
concrete was approximately 87%. However, the indirect energy
represented less than 11% of the total embodied energy of
cement. Furthermore, the IO-based embodied energy of
materials such as cement and aluminum, which mainly included
coal and electricity usage, increased significantly when calculated
with IO-based hybrid method probably due to the use of PEF for
electricity. In addition, most aluminum production plants
installed near hydropower plants buy electricity at a considerably
low price. The same may be true with most cement plants, which
may be buying coal at a cheaper price. The IO-based embodied
energy of adhesives was significantly higher than IO-based hybrid
values probably due to a larger consumption of secondary energy
sources such as petroleum products. Because the problem of
double counting is more pronounced in the case of secondary
fuels, the IO-based embodied energy value for adhesives is
significantly higher than the IO-based value.
As shown in Table 2, some construction materials such as
hardwood and softwood plywood and lumber share the same
embodied energy intensity because they come from the same
industry sector. Similarly, because gypsum and lime products are
grouped together, their energy intensities are the same. The same
is true for all clay products including bricks, clay floor and wall
tiles, and clay sewer pipes. More research is needed to
disaggregate the output of an industry sector into the product
under study and other products. Joshi20 has proposed an
1943
Article
approach to disaggregate an industry sector, which can be utilized
to compute more product-specific energy intensities.
The results of this study indicate that even if a process-based
analysis is carried out covering one upstream stage, a significant
error may occur due to the incompleteness of a truncated system
boundary. Although the incompleteness inherent in a process-
based analysis can be improved, covering a system boundary
similar to an IO analysis seems impractical. On the other hand,
the results of an IO-based hybrid analysis can be made more
study-specific by using the process of sector disaggregation
(Joshi20). However, the results should be interpreted and used
with caution, as there are issues with IO analyses that still need to
be addressed. For instance, using unreliable product price data
contributes to the uncertainty of the results of IO-based
methods. In addition, the assumptions of proportionality and
homogeneity inherent in an IO table adds to this uncertainty. IO
data are conventionally published late and using such old data
without proper adjustment may yield misleading results. To
avoid the use of price data, the total monetary output of a
commodity in physical units, if available, can be used to convert
embodied energy intensities to embodied energy (per unit of
mass or volume). The total energy embodied in a commodity can
be divided by the total output in physical units to calculate
embodied energy. In addition, the process of sector disag-
gregation can help address some of the issues relating to the
proportionality and homogeneity assumptions.
The life cycle embodied energy of a building and its
constituent materials can be a comprehensive indicator of the
building’s life cycle carbon contribution. Mostly, embodied
energy has been calculated as an aggregated energy value without
knowing the individual contribution of energy sources such as
coal, natural gas, oil, and electricity. In such a case, determining
carbon impacts becomes difficult, since an average carbon
emission coefficient is used. However, if embodied energy
intensities are computed for each energy source, a more detailed
carbon emission evaluation can be performed. We calculated
aggregated as well as disaggregated embodied energy values that
showed the composition of energy sources. Embodied energy
intensities shown in terms of various energy sources also help
distinguish materials that are more coal, oil, or electricity
intensive. The manufacturing process of such materials then
could be improved to reduce the use of carbon-intensive energy
sources. In this paper, we demonstrated that the embodied
energy of construction materials can be quantified in a complete
manner by including capital and human energy and by avoiding
the excessive use of energy prices.
■
*
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information
Additional text and tables as mentioned in the text. This material
is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: mandix72@hotmail.com.
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Holdren, J. P.; Ehrlich, P. R. Human population and the global
environment: Population growth, rising per capita material con-
sumption, and disruptive technologies have made civilization a global
ecological force. Am. Sci. 1974, 62 (3), 282−292.
DOI: 10.1021/es503896v
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1936−1945
Environmental Science & Technology
(2) Wackernagel, M.; Lewan, L.; Hansson, C. B. Evaluating the use of
natural capital with the ecological footprint: Applications in Sweden and
subregions. Ambio 1999, 604−612.
(3) Bruce, N. Towards a sustainable balance of population and
resources: Australia to 2050. J. Futures Stud. 2012, 16 (4), 107−116.
(4) IPCC. Climate Change 2007, The Physical Science Basis; Working
Group 1: Contribution to the fourth assessment; Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University
Press: New York, 2007.
(5) Alcott, B. Population matters in ecological economics. Ecol. Econ.
2012, 80, 109−120.
(6) USEPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990−2009; EPA 430-R-11-005; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency: Washington, DC, 2011.
(7) Ding, G. Development of a multi-criteria approach for the
measurement of sustainable performance for built projects and facilities.
PhD Thesis, University of Technology, Sydney, 2004.
(8) Langston, Y. L.; Langston, C. A. Reliability of building embodied
energy modeling: An analysis of 30 Melbourne case studies. Constr.
Manage. Econ. 2008, 26 (2), 147−160.
(9) Dixit, M. K.; Fernández-Solís, J. L.; Lavy, S.; Culp, C. H. Need for
an embodied energy measurement protocol for buildings: A review
paper. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2012, 16 (6), 3730−3743.
(10) USEPA. Buildings and their Impact on the Environment: A Statistical
Summary; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC,
2009; http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/gbstats.pdf.
(11) Treloar, G. J. A comprehensive embodied energy analysis framework.
Ph.D. Thesis, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, 1998.
(12) Crawford, R. H. Using input-output data in life cycle inventory
analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, 2004.
(13) Dixit, M. K.; Fernández-Solís, J.; Lavy, S.; Culp, C. H.
Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: A
literature review. Energy Build. 2010, 42 (8), 1238−1247.
(14) Dixit, M. K.; Culp, C. H.; Fernández-Solís, J. L. System boundary
for embodied energy in buildings: A conceptual model for definition.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2013, 21, 153−164.
(15) Langston, Y. L. Embodied energy modeling of individual buildings in
Melbourne, the inherent energy-cost relationship. Ph.D. Thesis, Deakin
University, Victoria, Australia, 2006.
(16) Dixit, M. K.; Culp, C. H.; Lavy, S.; Fernández-Solís, J. L. Recurrent
embodied energy in life cycle of built facilities. Facilities 2014, 32 (3/4),
160−181.
(17) Fernández, J. Materials and construction for low-energy buildings
in China. In Sustainable Urban Housing: Principles and Case Studies for
Low-Energy Design in China; Glicksman, L., Lin, J., Eds.; Springer:
Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 2006.
(18) Burnett, J. Forestry Commission Scotland, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Comparison, Carbon Benefits of Timber in Construction; Edinburgh Centre
for Carbon Management Ltd.: Edinburgh, UK, 2006.
(19) Khasreen, M. M.; Banfill, P. F. G.; Menzies, G. F. Life cycle
assessment and the environment impact of buildings: A review.
Sustainability 2009, 1 (3), 674−701.
(20) Joshi, S. V. Comprehensive product life-cycle analysis using input
output techniques. Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh,
PA, USA, 1998.
(21) Acquaye, A. A stochastic hybrid embodied energy and CO 2_eq
intensity analysis of building and construction processes in Ireland. Ph.D.
Thesis, Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin, 2010.
(22) Cole, R. J.; Wong, K. S. Minimizing environmental impact of high-
rise residential buildings. In Proceedings of Housing for Millions: The
Challenge Ahead; Housing Authority: Hong Kong, 1996; pp 262−265.
(23) Cole, R. J. Determining permissible degree of inaccuracy in life
cycle assessment protocols. In Proceedings of the Air & Waste
Management Association’s 89th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Nashville,
TN, USA, 23−28 June, 1996.
(24) Ramesh, T.; Prakash, R.; Shukla, K. K. Life cycle energy analysis of
buildings: An overview. Energy Build. 2010, 42 (10), 1592−1600.
1944
Article
(25) Chen, T. Y.; Burnett, J.; Chau, C. K. Analysis of embodied energy
use in the residential building of Hong Kong. Energy 2001, 26 (4), 323−
340.
(26) Scheuer, C.; Keoleian, G. A.; Reppe, P. Life cycle energy and
environmental performance of a new university building: Modeling
changes and design implications. Energy Build. 2003, 35 (10), 1049−
1064.
(27) Vukotic, L.; Fenner, R. A.; Symons, K. Assessing embodied energy
of building structural elements. Eng. Sustain. 2010, 163 (ES3), 147−158.
(28) Trusty, W. The Environmental Side of Sustainability: Using Life
Cycle Assessment to Assess True Performance; NRCC-48691; National
Research Council of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2006.
(29) Sartori, I.; Hestnes, A. G. Energy use in the life cycle of
conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article. Energy Build.
2007, 39 (3), 249−257.
(30) Ardente, F.; Beccali, M.; Cellura, M.; Mistretta, M. Building
energy performance: A LCA case study of kenaf-fibres insulation board.
Energy Build. 2008, 40 (1), 1−10.
(31) Pullen S. A tool for depicting the embodied energy of the Adelaide
urban environment. In Proceedings of Australian Institute of Building
Surveyors International Transitions Conference, Adelaide, March 2007.
(32) Hammond, G. P.; Jones, C. I. Embodied carbon: The concealed
impact of residential construction. Global Warming-Green Energy
Technol. 2010, 367−384.
(33) Utama, A.; Gheewala, S. H. Indonesian residential high rise
buildings: A life cycle energy assessment. Energy Build. 2009, 41 (11),
1263−1268.
(34) Chau, C. K.; Yik, F. W. H.; Hui, W. K.; Liu, H. C.; Yu, H. K.
Environmental impacts of building materials and building services
components for commercial buildings in Hong Kong. J. Clean. Prod.
2007, 15 (18), 1840−1851.
(35) Tingley, D. D.; Davison, B. Developing an LCA methodology to
account for the environmental benefits of design for deconstruction.
Build. Environ. 2012, 57, 387−395.
(36) Alcorn, J. A.; Baird, G. Use of a Hybrid Energy Analysis Method for
Evaluating the Embodied Energy of Building Materials; Center for Building
Performance and Research, Victoria University of Wellington: New
Zealand, 1996.
(37) Crawford, R. H.; Treloar, G. J. An assessment of the energy and
water embodied in commercial building construction. In Australian Life
Cycle Assessment Conference (4th: 2005: Novotel, Sydney, NSW); August
2005.
(38) Lenzen, M. Errors in conventional and input-output based life
cycle inventories. J. Ind. Ecol. 2000, 4 (4), 127−148.
(39) Horowitz, K. J.; Planting, M. A. Concepts and Methods of the Input-
Output Accounts; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis: Washington, DC,
2009.
(40) Miller, R. E.; Blair, P. D. Input-Output Analysis, Foundations and
Extensions; Cambridge University Press: New York, 2009.
(41) Dixit, M. K. Embodied Energy Calculation: Method and guidelines
for a building and its constituent materials. Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX, 2013.
(42) Carter, A. J.; Peet, N. J.; Baines, J. T. Direct and Indirect Energy
Requirements of the New Zealand Economy; New Zealand Energy
Research and Development Committee: Auckland, New Zealand, 1981.
(43) Crawford, R. H.; Treloar, G. J. Validation of the use of Australian
input output data for building embodied energy simulation. In Eighth
International IBPSA conference, Eindhoven, Netherlands, August 2003.
(44) IFIAS. IFIAS Workshop Report: Energy Analysis and Economics;
International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Studies: Lidingo,
Sweden, 22−27 June 1975; pp 151−204.
(45) Peuportier, B. L. P. Life cycle assessment applied to the
comparative evaluation of single family houses in the French context.
Energy Build. 2001, 33 (5), 443−450.
(46) Suh, S.; Lenzen, M.; Treloar, G. J.; Hondo, H.; Horvath, A.;
Huppes, G. System boundary selection in life cycle inventories using
hybrid approaches. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38 (3), 657−664.
DOI: 10.1021/es503896v
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1936−1945
Environmental Science & Technology
(47) Optis, M.; Wild, P. Inadequate documentation in published life
cycle energy reports on buildings. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15 (7),
644−651.
(48) Deru, M.; Torcellini, P. Source Energy and Emission Factors for
Energy Use in Buildings; NREL/TP-550-38617; National Renewable
Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2007.
(49) Molenbroek, E.; Stricker, E.; Boermans, T. Primary Energy Factors
for Electricity in Buildings, Toward a Flexible Electricity Supply. Ecofys:
Utrecht, The Netherlands; 2011.
(50) Cleveland, C. J.; Costanza, R. Net energy analysis. Encyclopedia of
Earth; 2008; http://www.www.eoearth.org/article/Net_energy_
analysis.
(51) Ulgiati, S.; Ascione, M.; Bargigli, S.; Cherubini, F.; Federici, M.;
Franzese, P. P.; Raugei, M.; Viglia, S.; Zucaro, A. Multi-method and
multi-scale analysis of energy and resource conversion and use. In Energy
Options Impact on Regional Security; Barbir, F., Ulgiati, S., Eds.; Springer,
The Netherlands, 2010; pp 1−36.
(52) Langston, Y. L.; Langston, C. A. Building energy and cost
performance: An analysis of 30 Melbourne Case Studies. Aust. J. Constr.
Econ. Build. 2007, 7 (1), 1−18.
(53) Huberman, N.; Pearlmutter, D. A life-cycle energy analysis of
building materials in Negev desert. Energy Build. 2008, 40 (5), 837−848.
(54) Alshboul, A. A.; Alzoubi, H. H. Analysis of embodied energy
requirements for natural dimensioned stone production in Jordan. Arch.
Sci. Rev. 2008, 51 (2), 124−132.
(55) Pulselli, R. M.; Simoncini, E.; Marchettini, N. Energy and emergy
based cost−benefit evaluation of building envelopes relative to
geographical location and climate. Build. Environ. 2009, 44 (5), 920−
928.
(56) Dias, W. P. S.; Pooliyadda, S. P. Quality based energy contents and
carbon coefficients for building materials: A systems approach. Energy
2004, 29 (4), 561−580.
(57) Deng, W.; Prasad, D.; Osmond, P.; Li, F. T. Quantifying life cycle
energy and carbon footprints of China’s residential small district. J. Green
Build. 2011, 6 (4), 96−111.
(58) Costanza, R. Energy Costs of Goods and Services in 1967: Including
Solar Energy Inputs and Labor and Government Service Feedbacks; Energy
Research Group; Center for Advanced Computation, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Urbana-Champaign, IL, 1978.
(59) USDOC. Annual Survey of Manufactures: General Statistics:
Capital Expenditures for Plant and Equipment by Industry Groups and
Industries: 2003 and 2002; U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics
and Statistics Division, U.S. Census Bureau: Washington, DC, 2003;
http://www2.census.gov/econ2003/AM/sector31/AM0331GS105.
zip.
(60) Murphy, D. J.; Hall, C. A.; Dale, M.; Cleveland, C. Order from
chaos: A preliminary protocol for determining the EROI of fuels.
Sustainability 2011, 3 (10), 1888−1907.
(61) FAO. Human Energy Requirements; Report of a Joint FAO/
WHO/UNU Expert Consultation; Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations: Rome, 17−24 October, 2001.
(62) BLS. Databases, Tables and Calculators by Subject; U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics: Washington, DC, 2002; http://data.bls.gov/pdq/
SurveyOutputServlet.
(63) BLS. Highlights of Women’s Earning in 2002; Report 972; U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics: Washington, DC,
2003; http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2002.pdf.
(64) Borrud, L. G.; Flegal, K. M.; Looker, A. C.; Everhart, J. E. et al.
Body Composition Data for Individuals 8 Years of Age and Older: U.S.
Population, 1999−2004; Vital Health Stat, Series 11, Number 250;
National Center for Health Statistics: Hyattsville, MD, 2010.
(65) USBEA. Fulltime and Part-Time Employees by Industry; U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis: Washington,
DC, 2005; http://www.bea.gov/histdata/NIyear.asp.
(66) USCB. American Community Survey Data; U.S. Census Bureau:
Washington, DC., 2002; http://www2.census.gov/acs/downloads/
Core_Tables/2002/.
1945
Article
(67) BLS. Consumer Expenditure in 2002; Report 974; U.S. Department
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics: Washington, DC, 2004; http://
www.bls.gov/cex/csxann02.pdf.
(68) USCB. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, Natural
Resources; U.S. Census Bureau: Washington, DC, 2006; https://www.
census.gov/prod/2005pubs/06statab/natresor.pdf.
(69) USCB. 2002 Economic Census, Construction, Industry Series; U.S.
Census Bureau: Washington, DC, 2005; http://www.census.gov/econ/
census02/guide/INDRPT23.HTM.
(70) BLS. Industry Output and Employment, 2002; U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics: Washington, DC, 2012; http://stats.
bls.gov/emp/ep_data_industry_out_and_emp.htm.
(71) NASS. 2002 Census of Agriculture, United States Summary and
Data. Vol. 1, Geographic Area Series Part 51; AC-02-A-51; U.S.
Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, June, 2004.
(72) USDOC. Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries: 2003, M03
(AS)-1 (RV); Annual Survey of Manufactures; U.S. Department of
Commerce, Economics and Statistics Division, United States Census
Bureau: Washington, DC, 2005.
(73) USDOT. National Transportation Statistics; Bureau of Trans-
portation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation: Washington,
DC, 2012.
(74) Santos, A.; McGuckin, N.; Nakamoto, H. Y.; Gray, D.; Liss, S.
Summary of Travel Trends: 2009 National Household Travel Survey, U.S.
Department of Transportation Trends in Travel Behavior, 1969−2009;
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation:
Washington, DC, 2011.
(75) BLS. American Time Use Survey Data, 2003; U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics: Washington, DC, 2004; http://www.
bls.gov/news.release/archives/atus_09142004.pdf.
(76) USBEA. 2002 Benchmark Input-Output Data, 2002 Data Files;
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis: Washington, DC, 2008; http://
www.bea.gov/industry/io_benchmark.htm#2002data.
(77) USCB. Annual Capital Expenditure Survey; U.S. Census Bureau:
Washington, DC, 2002; http://www.census.gov/econ/aces/xls/2002/.
(78) USBEA. Fixed Assets and Consumer Durable Goods for 1997−2010;
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis: Washington, DC, 2011; http://
www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2011/09%20September/0911_fixed-assets.pdf.
(79) USBEA. Fixed Assets Accounts Tables; U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis: Washington, DC, 2012; http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.
cfm?ReqID=10&step=1#reqid=10&step=1&isuri=1.
(80) USDA. Farm Production Expenditures, 2003 Summary, July 2004;
U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, 2004.
(81) USCB. Utilities: Subject Series − Misc. Subjects: Construction
Activity by Utilities for the United States: 2002; 2002 Economic Census;
U.S. Census Bureau: Washington, DC, 2002.
DOI: 10.1021/es503896v
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1936−1945