Potential Application of Blockchain Technology for Embodied Carbon Estimating in Construction Supply Chains
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Blockchain
1.2. Embodied Carbon Estimating
2. Research Methodology
3. Research Findings and Discussion
- Decentralisation—A traditional information system consists of a centralised approach where everything is controlled by a single point along with a central database that stores the data [54]. According to Tan, et al. [55], single point of contact provides effective management of services. However, interviewees B and C opined that a traditional information system being centralised, arises few disadvantages, such as increased dependence, open to vulnerability, low auditability, trust issues, etc. In order to mitigate such issues while providing the same benefits of a centralised system, decentralised blockchain technology has been introduced [56]. In an EC estimating blockchain system, a distributed ledger that contains all the EC transaction records are shared among all the nodes in a peer-to-peer network. In order to record a new EC transaction or supersede an existing EC transaction record stored in a distributed ledger to make a change, generally the consent/validation by majority of the nodes is required. Hence, the peer-to-peer network makes it extremely difficult to tamper with data stored in a blockchain. The decentralisation feature of blockchain provides a tamper-proof data storage mechanism fulfilling one of the utmost essential features that is required to use blockchain for EC estimating in CSCs.
- Anonymity—A centralised system as well as a blockchain system can maintain anonymity; however, the anonymity level in a blockchain is quite high. A blockchain system protects the identity of the user by maintaining anonymity or pseudonymity. In order to carry out transactions in a blockchain based EC estimating system, each user will have a public key and a private key, which comprise of large integer numbers, but since these numbers are so large, they are usually represented using a separate Wallet Import Format (WIF) consisting of letters and numbers [57]. Neither the private key nor the public key discloses the identity of the user by any means. The user of an EC estimating blockchain system can use his public key to prove his identity, thus, blockchain enables pseudonymity effectively. Moreover, interviewee A added, “unlike a traditional information system that could be hacked to reveal the encrypted information where anonymity can be at stake, a blockchain system is considered as almost impossible to hack as the public key is too complicated for a hacker to decrypt and recover the user details”. In EC estimating, it is quite important to maintain anonymity of the EC contributors as well as other confidential information. Hence, a blockchain system is more suitable for recording EC transactions.
- Security—The centralised system as well as a blockchain system maintains security through authentication limitations to control users’ access to the systems; however, comparatively, a blockchain system has a higher level of security. According to Heeks [58] (p. 10), “centralised information systems make organisations more dependent and more vulnerable for a number of reasons such as greater numbers of staff relying on single information systems; greater reliance on a few key staff who plan, develop and run those systems; greater technical complexity that makes problems harder to diagnose; and greater potential impact of data security breaches”. In a centralised system there is a possibility to be hacked and as the system is centralised, a change in one location is sufficient to affect the entire system. However, in a blockchain, data is stored in cryptographically-linked blocks as a ledger and a copy of the ledger is shared among all the nodes. Therefore, for a hacker to change the data stored in a blockchain system, the respective hash of that block needs to be changed. Subsequently, the hacker has to change the hashes in the entire chain between the tampered block and the latest block [59]. On the other hand, more than 50% of the ledgers need to be replicated within a short period of time for a successful attack to be completed, which is extremely difficult. According to interviewee A’s point of view, “security demarcates the combination of confidentiality, integrity, and availability”. In a blockchain-based EC estimating system, due to decentralisation, the confidentiality of data is at stake. However, as EC data are not extremely sensitive or confidential, this does not hinder the tendency of using blockchain for EC estimating. Data integrity also plays an important role and it can be achieved easily through blockchain due to immutability and decentralisation. EC data has to be available and accessible to the respective stakeholders involved in a project and data can be easily accessed due to transparency and due to the distributed ledger being shared with all nodes. Depending on the requirements of the system, the access can be controlled through authentication; however, for anyone who has access to the system, the EC data will be available at his/her fingertip. Interviewee B emphasised that “data integrity and availability of information whenever required, is essential for a blockchain-based EC estimating system”. In summary, though confidentiality is less in a decentralised distributed ledger platform, data integrity and availability could be achieved well in a blockchain system. Hence, a blockchain system has more security compared to a traditional information system, making it a better option for EC estimating in CSCs.
- Immutability—A centralised system is quite vulnerable due to its single point of control [58]. Hence, if the centralised database is hacked, data can be tampered quite easily affecting the entire system. Additionally, interviewee A stated that “in a centralised system, data life is totally depending on a single organisation who is mainlining the system. However, in a blockchain system, it is extremely difficult to attack and tamper with its data. Therefore, data recorded in a blockchain is considered as immutable”. Immutability can be disadvantageous in certain occasions. If a transaction record is entered in a centralised system, it can be changed quite easily unlike a blockchain system, the transaction record will be superseded by the new transaction record and everything will be recorded in the ledger as data in blockchain is immutable [60]. The existing EC estimating tools such as GaBi, SimaPro, Athena, etc., that are used to estimate EC are controlled by respective organisations. If a certain organisation decides to get rid of the tool, all EC calculations carried out using this tool will be at stake. However, the EC transactions recorded in the blockchain-based EC system will remain eternal throughout the life span of data as a result of immutability.
- Auditability—A traditional information system and a blockchain system provide auditability. However, auditing related to an information system is conducted by third party personnel to reduce errors and bias [61]. Thus, the auditing process of an information system results in additional costs. In a blockchain system, a node within the blockchain can publicly audit and share transaction records without relying on a trusted third party [62]. According to Zheng, et al. [63], each transaction is validated and recorded with a timestamp in the blockchain; therefore, any user could trace the previous records, providing higher auditability. Interviewee B mentioned that “in a centralised system, the maintenance audit log exists within the centralised system and the internal team that handles the centralised system has access to change the logs too. This issue is eliminated in a blockchain system due to the feature, immutability, as it guarantees almost 100% auditability”. Therefore, a blockchain system has easier ways to fulfil auditing purposes highlighting the suitability of using blockchain for accounting EC transactions.
- Veracity—In any information system, veracity can be achieved to a greater extent. Unlike manual transactions, where there is a higher possibility for human errors, in an automated information system, possibility for errors is comparatively less. However, if erroneous data are entered, the result will be faulty. The same aspect is applicable for the blockchain system too. However, in a blockchain system, there is a validation process that requires any record to be validated by a majority of the nodes for it to be recorded as a valid transaction. If a faulty record is entered into the blockchain, it will be rejected by the nodes. Thus, veracity in a blockchain system is higher, making it the best option for carbon accounting.
- Transparency—A traditional information system has no transparency. Interviewee B emphasised that “in a traditional information system, the user has to blindly believe and trust the information system and the data, which are displayed to them. The stakeholders/users have no way of validating or checking on the accuracy of the data that are being displayed or calculated at the back end”. As an example, using an EC tool such as GaBi is very risky, as the user is unaware of the method of calculation that has been followed to estimate the EC. The user has to simply enter the materials used and the process carried out while the software calculates and provides the EC estimate. The user is unable to validate the accuracy of the estimate due to non-transparency. However, in a blockchain system, one can easily backtrack and identify the important information as well as the source of the data as a result of transparency. Interviewees A and C agreed that greater transparency provides a higher level of auditability. For an EC estimating platform, this quality of transparency is essential to maintain positive relations with users. Carbon accounting in a transparent blockchain platform provides reliability and trust along with integrity.
- Disintermediation—Compared to a traditional system, a blockchain system enables disintermediation. Due to the difficulty of trusting an unknown party, a reliable third-party such as banks or financial institutes are involved when carrying out financial transactions. However, in a decentralised blockchain platform, the third-party authorities are removed, and the key transfer processes are verified and authenticated by nodes in the peer-to-peer network [62]. The blockchain provides disintermediation by removing the involvement of a third party. In EC estimating, existing EC databases and tools act as a third-party source that could completely change the estimate depending on various factors and issues as discussed previously. Currently, the EC estimates are prepared by the land developer or very rarely the contractor, who will become the third parties in carbon calculation as they may not be the EC contributors in certain occasions. For example, though it is a manufacturer that contributes to EC emissions, generally the estimate is prepared by the land developer or contractor. In a blockchain-based EC estimating system, EC transactions will be recorded by the EC contributors in CSCs enhancing the accuracy of the EC estimates. Furthermore, the results could be reviewed and analysed by the parties who have access to the distributed ledger. Removal of a third party enables trust and accuracy while reducing any additional costs.
- Trust—Reliability of data stored in a traditional information system can be questionable due to the possibility of entering erroneous data. Therefore, one can be reluctant to trust a traditional information system. However, in a blockchain system, any transaction entered to the blockchain needs to be validated by a majority of the nodes for the transaction to be recorded in the blockchain. This provides great trust among users of a blockchain system. In order to record EC transactions accurately, a trustworthy platform is required and thus blockchain is the ideal solution. Trust is the most important feature for the stakeholders in the eco-system to trust the system and use blockchain to estimate EC accurately.
- Scalability—A traditional information system accommodates scalability as it has the possibility in adapting to various changing needs or demands of the users [64]. Interviewee C added that “scalability can be categorised based on storage capacity, transaction time, and new functions”. Buterin [65] declared that a public blockchain will be able to handle on average 3–20 transactions per second, whereas, mainstream payment services such as VISA, are currently handling 24,000 transactions per second [66]. However, the Bitcoin blockchain processes a maximum of seven transactions per second and due to the scalability issue in the blockchain design, it is unable to handle large amounts of transactions [53]. Therefore, the blockchain platform initially had this scalability issue to a greater extent. Sharding has been introduced as a solution to this scalability problem. Through sharding, the overheads of processing transactions are split among multiple, smaller groups of nodes [67]. According to Luu, et al. [68], Elastico is a proposed permission-less blockchain where the agreement throughput is scaled up near linear with the computation power of the network and tolerates byzantine adversaries to control up to one-fourth of the computation capacity in a partial synchronous network. Though scalability is one of the greatest disadvantages of the blockchain system, if sharding is introduced, it can be resolved. All experts agreed on introducing sharding to resolve the scalability issue in blockchain. On the other hand, speed or data transaction rate is not an issue for accounting EC transactions as it has a very low rate compared to other financial services. Besides, the logical equations that are used for EC estimating are consistent and on the other hand, they are non-dependent on the features of a project. Therefore, the speed of transactions would not be much of an issue. The storage capacity to store all the EC transactions is the only challenge that will be faced by the researcher. As a solution for this issue most relevant data can be stored on-chain and all other data could be stored off-chain to improve the efficiency of the system.
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Andoni, M.; Robu, V.; Flynn, D.; Abram, S.; Geach, D.; Jenkins, D.P.; McCallum, P.; Peacock, A.D. Blockchain technology in the energy sector: A systematic review of challenges and opportunities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 100, 143–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manglekar, S.; Dinesha, H. Block Chain: An Innovative Research Area. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computing Communication Control and Automation, Pune, India, 16–18 August 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, X.; Lu, Q.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, L.; Yao, H.; Vasilakos, A.V. Designing blockchain-based applications a case study for imported product traceability. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019, 92, 399–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biswas, S.; Sharif, K.; Li, F.; Nour, B.; Wang, Y.; Shaif, K.A. Scalable Blockchain Framework for Secure Transactions in IoT. IEEE Int. Things J. 2019, 6, 4650–4659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walport, M. Distributed Ledger Technology: Beyond Blockchain, UK Government Office for Science, UK 2016. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492972/gs-16-1-distributed-ledger-technology.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2020).
- Dorri, A.; Kanhere, S.S.; Jurdak, R. Blockchain in Internet of Things: Challenges and Solutions. arXiv 2016, arXiv:abs/1608.05187. [Google Scholar]
- Higgins, S. Republic of Georgia to Develop Blockchain Land Registry. Available online: https://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-working-with-georgian-government-on-blockchain-land-registry/ (accessed on 4 September 2016).
- Kinnaird, C.; Geipel, M. Blockchain Technology; Arup: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Nanayakkara, S.; Perera, S.; Bandara, H.M.N.D.; Weerasuriya, G.T.; Ayoub, J. Blockchain Technology and Its Potential for the Construction Industry. In Proceedings of the AUBEA Conference, Noosa, Australia, 6–8 November 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Perera, S.; Nanayakkara, S.; Rodrigo, M.; Senaratne, S.; Weinand, R. Blockchain technology: Is it hype or real in the construction industry? J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2020, 17, 100125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koeleman, J.; Ribeirinho, M.J.; Rockhill, D.; Sjödin, E.; Strube, G. Decoding Digital Transformation in Construction; McKinsey & Company: Chicago, IL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Agarwal, R.; Chandrasekaran, S.; Sridhar, M. Imagining Construction’s Digital Future; McKinsey Productivity Sciences Center: Singapore, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Rodrigo, M.N.N.; Perera, S.; Senaratne, S.; Jin, X. Embodied Carbon Mitigation Strategies in the Construction Industry. In Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress, Hong Kong, China, 17–21 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Alter, S. Defining information systems as work systems: Implications for the IS field. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2008, 17, 448–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Swan, M. Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy; O’Reilly Media Inc.: Champaign, IL, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Li, S. Application of Blockchain Technology in Smart City Infrastructure. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Smart Internet of Things (SmartIoT), Xi’an, China, 17–19 August 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, Y. Blockchain: A Survey on Functions, Applications and Open Issues. J. Ind. Integr. Manag. 2018, 3, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinh, T.T.A.; Wang, J.; Chen, G.; Liu, R.; Ooi, B.C.; Tan, K.L. Blockbench: A framework for analysing private blockchains. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference, Chicago, IL, USA, 14–19 May 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Nanayakkara, S.; Perera, S.; Senaratne, S. Stakeholders’ Perspective on Blockchain and Smart Contracts Solutions for Construction Supply Chains. In Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress 2019, Hong Kong, China, 17–21 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Dimitri, N. The Blockchain Technology—Some Theory and Applications; Maastricht School of Management: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Teng, Y.; Li, K.; Pan, W.; Ng, T. Reducing building life cycle carbon emissions through prefabrication: Evidence from and gaps in empirical studies. Build. Environ. 2018, 132, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Victoria, M.F.; Perera, S.; Davies, A. Design Economics for Dual Currency Management in Construction Projects. In Proceedings of the RICS COBRA 2016, Toronto, NSW, Canada, 20–22 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Rodrigo, M.N.N.; Perera, S.; Senaratne, S.; Jin, X. Conceptual model on estimating embodied carbon in construction supply chains using value chain and blockchain. In Proceedings of the AUBEA Conference 2019, Noosa, Australia, 6–8 November 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Hammond, G.P.; Jones, C.I. Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Energy 2008, 161, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hammond, G.P.; Jones, C.I. Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE) Version 2.0; University of Bath: Bath, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Volume 2–Major Works. In Hutchins UK Building Blackbook: The Capital Cost and Embodied CO2 Guide; Franklin & Andrews: London, UK, 2010.
- Ekundayo, D.O.; Babatunde, S.O.; Ekundayo, A.; Perera, S.; Udeaja, C. Life cycle carbon emissions and comparative evaluation of selected open source UK embodied carbon counting tools. Constr. Econ. Build. 2019, 19, 220–242. [Google Scholar]
- WRAP. WRAP—Embodied Carbon Database. Available online: http://ecdb.wrap.org.uk/About.aspx (accessed on 2 August 2018).
- WRAP. WRAP’s Waste Forecasting Tools. Available online: http://nwtool.wrap.org.uk/ (accessed on 9 September 2018).
- Ecoinvent. Available online: https://www.ecoinvent.org/database/ecoinvent-34/ecoinvent-34.html (accessed on 1 August 2018).
- AusLCI. Available online: http://www.auslci.com.au/index.php/Home (accessed on 9 September 2011).
- AusLCI. AusLCI Database. Available online: https://www.lifecycles.com.au/auslci-database (accessed on 22 April 2020).
- Crawford, R.H.; Stephan, A.; Prideaux, F. Environmental Performance in Construction (EPiC) Database; The University of Melbourne: Melbourne, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- The GreenBook. The GreenBook 2020. Available online: https://footprintgreenbook.com/ (accessed on 19 May 2020).
- Mott MacDonald. Carbon Tools. Available online: https://www.mottmac.com/article/7748/carbon-tools (accessed on 1 August 2018).
- Ashworth, A.; Perera, S. Economics of Sustainability and Carbon Estimating. In Cost Studies of Buildings; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 491–529. [Google Scholar]
- BRE. BRE Green Guide Calculator. Available online: https://www.bregroup.com/greenguide/calculator/page.jsp?id=2071 (accessed on 22 July 2020).
- Ammouri, A.H.; Srour, I.; Hamade, R.F. Carbon Footprint Calculator for Construction Projects (CFCCP). In Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing; Seliger, G., Khraisheh, M.K., Jawahir, I.S., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- AFD. The AFD Carbon Footprint Tool for projects. In Proceedings of the AFD, Paris, France, 27 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Fu, F.; Luo, H.; Zhong, H.; Hill, A. Development of a Carbon Emission Calculations System for Optimizing Building Plan Based on the LCA Framework. Math. Probl. Eng. 2014, 2014, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SimaPro. Available online: https://simapro.com/ (accessed on 9 September 2008).
- eTool. About eToolLCD. Available online: https://etoolglobal.com/ (accessed on 21 May 2018).
- UNSW. Step-by-Step Manual for Embodied Carbon Explorer (ECE) Tool Analysis; UNSW: Sydney, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- The Footprint Company (Ed.) The Footprint Calculator; The Footprint Company: Waverley, Australia, 2019; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Elhag, H. The ‘carbon footprint’ of sewer pipes: Risks of inconsistency. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Sustain. 2015, 168, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Georgiou, E.; Raffin, M.; Colquhoun, K.; Borrion, A.; Campos, L.C. The significance of measuring embodied carbon dioxide equivalent in water sector infrastructure. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 216, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinha, R.; Lennartsson, M.; Frostell, B.M. Environmental footprint assessment of building structures: A comparative study. Build. Environ. 2016, 104, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atlam, H.; Alenezi, A.; Alassafi, M.O.; Wills, G.B. Blockchain with Internet of Things: Benefits, Challenges, and Future Directions. Int. J. Intell. Syst. Appl. 2018, 10, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Risius, M.; Spohrer, K. A Blockchain Research Framework. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2017, 59, 385–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigo, M.N.N.; Perera, S.; Senaratne, S.; Jin, X. Blockchain for construction supply chains: A literature synthesis. In Proceedings of the PAQS Conference, Sydney, Australia, 18–20 November 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Underwood, S. Blockchain beyond bitcoin. Commun. ACM 2016, 59, 15–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, J.; Yan, J.; Zhang, K.Z.K. Blockchain-Based sharing services: What blockchain technology can contribute to smart cities. Financ. Innov. 2016, 2, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Karame, G. On the Security and Scalability of Bitcoin’s Blockchain. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security—CCS’16, Vienna, Austria, 24–28 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Powell, A.L.; French, J.C.; Callan, J.; Connell, M.; Viles, C.L. The Impact of Database Selection on Distributed Searching. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Athens, Greece, 23 July 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Tan, W.; Cater-Steel, A.; Toleman, M.; Seaniger, R. Implementing Centralised IT Service Management: Drawing Lessons from the Public Sector. In Proceedings of the 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Toowoomba, Australia, 5–7 December 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Mirzayi, S.; Mehrzad, M. Bitcoin, An SWOT Analysis. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer and Knowledge Engineering (ICCKE 2017), Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran, 26–27 October 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Won, J.H.; Bollella, G. Blockchain-Assisted Public Key Infrastructure for Internet of Things Applications; VMware: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Heeks, R. Centralised vs. Decentralised Management of Public Information Systems: A Core-Periphery Solution. In White Paper; Institute for Development Policy and Management: Manchester, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Nofer, M.; Gomber, P.; Hinz, O.; Schiereck, D. Blockchain. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2017, 59, 183–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamida, E.B.; Brousmiche, K.L.; Levard, H.; Thea, E. Blockchain for Enterprise: Overview, Opportunities and Challenges. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Communications (ICWMC 2017), Nice, France, 23–27 July 2017. [Google Scholar]
- ISACA. Information Systems Auditing: Tools and Techniques. In Information Systems Audit and Control Association; ISACA: Schaumburg, IL, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Ferrag, M.A.; Derdour, M.; Mukherjee, M.; Derhab, A.; Maglaras, L.; Janicke, H. Blockchain Technologies for the Internet of Things: Research Issues and Challenges. IEEE Int. Things J. 2018, 6, 2188–2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zheng, Z.; Xie, S.; Dai, H.-N.; Chen, X.; Wang, H. Blockchain Challenges and Opportunities: A Survey. IJWGS 2018, 14, 352–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benson, T. Why general practitioners use computers and hospital doctors do not—Part 2: Scalability. BMJ 2002, 325, 1090–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Buterin, V. Privacy on the Blockchain. Available online: https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/01/15/privacy-on-the-blockchain/ (accessed on 7 September 2016).
- VISA. Visa Acceptance for Retailers. Available online: https://usa.visa.com/run-your-business/small-business-tools/retail.html (accessed on 7 September 2018).
- Zamani, M.; Movahedi, M.; Raykova, M. RapidChain: Scaling Blockchain via Full Sharding. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security—CCS 18, Toronto, ON, Canada, 15–19 October 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Luu, L.; Narayanan, V.; Zheng, C.; Baweja, K.; Gilbert, S.; Saxena, P.A. Secure Sharding Protocol For Open Blockchains. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security—CCS 16, Vienna, Austria, 24–28 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
- SelfKey. Available online: https://selfkey.org/ (accessed on 7 September 2018).
- ShoCard. ShoBadge: Secure Enterprise Identity Authentication Built Using the Blockchain. Available online: https://shocard.com/shobadge/ (accessed on 7 September 2018).
- Arcade City. Blockchain-Based platform cooperativism for a new sharing economy. In White Paper; Arcade City: Orlando, FL, USA, 2018; Volume Q1. [Google Scholar]
- Power Ledger. Power Ledger: Energy Reimagined. Available online: https://www.powerledger.io/ (accessed on 8 September 2018).
- Filecoin. Introducing Filecoin, A Decentralized Storage Network. Available online: https://filecoin.io/ (accessed on 2 September 2018).
- Bimchain. Available online: https://bimchain.io/ (accessed on 22 July 2018).
Type | EC Estimating Tool | Type of Software | Details | Last Updated | System Boundary | Location | Publicly Available | Free | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Databases | ICE | Excel Sheet | EC | 2019 | cradle-to-gate | UK | Yes | Yes | [24,25] |
Blackbook | Book | EC | 2010 | cradle-to-gate | UK | Yes | No | [26,27] | |
WRAP | Web Application | EC | UK | For registered users | Yes | [28,29] | |||
Ecoinvent | Web Application | LCA | 2017 | cradle-to-gate | Switzerland | Yes | No | [30] | |
AusLCI | Excel Sheets/XML Format | EPD | 2016 | cradle-to-gate | Australia | Yes | Yes | [31,32] | |
EPiC | Book | EE and EC | 2019 | cradle-to-gate | Australia | Yes | Yes | [33] | |
The GreenBook 2020 | Book | EC | Nov 2019 | cradle-to-end of construction | Australia | Yes | No | [34] | |
Tools | CapIT Estimator | Published as Hutchins UK Blackbook | EC | 2011 | cradle-to-gate | UK | Yes | No | [35] |
BRE Green Guide Calculator | Web Application | EC | 2015 | UK | For licensed BREEAM/EcoHomes users | No | [36,37] | ||
CFCCP | Excel Sheet | EC | cradle-to-end of construction | Yes | Yes | [38] | |||
AFD Carbon Estimating Tool | EC and OC | 2017 | site-grave | France | [39] | ||||
GaBi Education Software | Software Application | LCA | 2017 | cradle-to-grave | Germany | Yes | Yes | [40] | |
SimaPro | Software Application | LCA | 2017 | cradle-to-grave | Netherlands | Yes | No | [41] | |
eToolLCD | Web Application | LCA | 2010 | cradle-to-grave | Australia | Yes | No | [42] | |
ECE Tool | Web Application | EC | 2019 | cradle-to-gate | Australia | Yes | No | [43] | |
The Footprint Calculator | Web Application | LCA | 2019 | cradle-to-grave | Australia | Yes | No | [44] |
No | Feature | Reference | Traditional Information System | Blockchain System |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Decentralisation | Atlam, et al. [48], Risius and Spohrer [49] | Low | High |
2 | Anonymity and Pseudonymity | Atlam, et al. [48], Rodrigo, et al. [50] | Medium | High |
3 | Security | Risius and Spohrer [49], Underwood [51] | Medium | High |
4 | Immutability | Risius and Spohrer [49], Underwood [51] | No | High |
5 | Auditability | Risius and Spohrer [49], Underwood [51] | Medium | High |
6 | Veracity | Perera, et al. [10], Rodrigo, et al. [50] | Low | High |
7 | Transparency | Risius and Spohrer [49], Underwood [51] | Low | High |
8 | Disintermediation | Underwood [51], Sun, et al. [52] | No | High |
9 | Trust (without a third-party) | Underwood [51], Sun, et al. [52] | No | High |
10 | Scalability | [10,53] | High | Low |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rodrigo, M.N.N.; Perera, S.; Senaratne, S.; Jin, X. Potential Application of Blockchain Technology for Embodied Carbon Estimating in Construction Supply Chains. Buildings 2020, 10, 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10080140
Rodrigo MNN, Perera S, Senaratne S, Jin X. Potential Application of Blockchain Technology for Embodied Carbon Estimating in Construction Supply Chains. Buildings. 2020; 10(8):140. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10080140
Chicago/Turabian StyleRodrigo, Muhandiramge Nimashi Navodana, Srinath Perera, Sepani Senaratne, and Xiaohua Jin. 2020. "Potential Application of Blockchain Technology for Embodied Carbon Estimating in Construction Supply Chains" Buildings 10, no. 8: 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10080140
APA StyleRodrigo, M. N. N., Perera, S., Senaratne, S., & Jin, X. (2020). Potential Application of Blockchain Technology for Embodied Carbon Estimating in Construction Supply Chains. Buildings, 10(8), 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10080140