Traditional life cycle assessment (LCA) is too data intensive and time consuming to be used during typical building design processes. Conducting an LCA during the building design process therefore requires simplifications and assumptions. Such “screening LCAs” are quicker and can be used with less data but introduce greater uncertainty. Unfortunately, uncertainty is not reflected in standard deterministic LCA calculations, which produce single-point values in LCA results. Thus, in this study, data quality scoring has been incorporated into a screening LCA to produce probabilistic predictions of environmental performance based on limited data. The approach has been applied during the design process of a bio-based wall panel designed for a circular economy. A combination of ecoinvent and material data sheets were used to analyse a wide range of novel bio-based insulation materials. The screening LCA analysed global warming potential and identified a short-list of promising materials that were then subjected to a detailed LCA for further consideration in the design. The method uses publicly available information and can be applied at material or building-element level. The method thus helps designers estimate environmental impacts without hindering the design process.

Several regulations and standards have been developed to reduce the carbon footprint of buildings, but these have failed to provide a clear pathway to a net zero future. Hence, we recently introduced the Active Building Code (ABCode). This provides guidance on reducing the environmental impact of the next generation of buildings, termed Active Buildings (ABs), through their synergy with the grid. This paper aims to illuminate the regulatory landscape, justify our initial proposal for the ABCode, and reveal opportunities and challenges to the popularisation of ABs. Twelve online focus group discussions were conducted, with thirty stakeholders in total, all selected on the basis of their expertise. A grounded theory approach identified five core themes in such discussions. These strongly overlap with what is incorporated in the ABCode, suggesting the code successfully captures issues important to experts. Stakeholders defined ABs as responsive buildings and proposed both energy and carbon are considered in their assessment. They hence aligned with the definition and evaluation framework proposed by the ABCode. Finally, stakeholders considered people’s tendency to prioritise capital cost as the greatest challenge to the popularisation of ABs, and the increasing demand for healthy environments as its greatest opportunity.