Open Access Peer-reviewed Review

An Integrated Risk Management Framework for Digital Data Systems and Building Life Cycle Carbon Emissions

Article Sidebar

Quantified risk logic
Download PDF
Submitted   Mar 27, 2026
Published   Jun 3, 2026
Issue    Vol 1 No 1 (2025)
DOI   10.25082/SCR.2025.01.003

Views

0

Downloads

0

Citations

PlumX Metrics

Main Article Content

Evaldas Matuzevičius
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
Jolanta Tamošaitienė corresponding author
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
Crossmark logo

Abstract

This paper examines the key risks associated with developing digital data systems for managing the carbon footprint of a building over its entire life cycle, or the total carbon dioxide emitted over a building’s entire life cycle. The analysis suggests that these platforms need to integrate 3D building models (BIM), environmental data, and digital building records. As modern research increasingly focuses on the total impact of a building over its entire life cycle, rather than just the carbon dioxide required to manufacture the structures, ensuring data integrity and consistency across multiple devices is becoming increasingly challenging. The literature identifies several key risks, including poor data quality, limited interoperability between software environments, and confusing legal regulations. Currently, the connection between 3D models and most studies, which rely on proprietary software ecosystems, is not fully automated: one recent review found that while some parts are automated, most studies still require manual data reconciliation, and most are stuck using proprietary software rather than open systems. There are also gaps in how product data and building models are synchronized, leading to tracking errors. On the legal side, research into digital building logs shows that it is often unclear who actually owns the data or who has access to it. Addressing these issues requires more than technological improvements alone. We need a solid plan for how data is handled, based on five ideas: using standard data formats, double-checking quality, being clear about what we are measuring, validating results across different tools, and rolling the system out in stages with proper training. The best way forward is to build a platform that reuses existing reliable datasets and carefully adds new project info, rather than attempting to implement an entirely new system without incremental validation. Certification schemes like BREEAM are a primary thing driving the requirement for reliable, integrated whole-life carbon (WLC) data, but this also inherits the data quality and interoperability risks inherent in connecting BIM, LCA, and product declaration systems.

Keywords
Building Information Modeling (BIM), Whole-Life Carbon assessment, digital data systems, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), risk management

Article Details

How to Cite
Matuzevičius, E., & Tamošaitienė, J. (2026). An Integrated Risk Management Framework for Digital Data Systems and Building Life Cycle Carbon Emissions. Sustainable Construction and Risks, 1(1), 24-35. https://doi.org/10.25082/SCR.2025.01.003
Creative Commons License

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

References

  1. Adewumi, A. S., Opoku, A., & Dangana, Z. (2024). Sustainability assessment frameworks for delivering Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) targets: A case of Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) UK New Construction. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(5), 3779–3791. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2768
  2. Almeida, R., Chaves, L., Silva, M., Carvalho, M., & Caldas, L. (2023). Integration between BIM and EPDs: Evaluation of the main difficulties and proposal of a framework based on ISO 19650:2018. Journal of Building Engineering, 68, 106091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106091
  3. Alonso, R., Olivadese, R., Ibba, A., & Reforgiato Recupero, D. (2023). Towards the definition of a European Digital Building Logbook: A survey. Heliyon, 9(9), e19285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19285
  4. Aragón, A., Spudys, P., Pupeikis, D., Nieto, Ó., & Garcia Alberti, M. (2025). Bridging Interoperability Gaps Between LCA and BIM: Analysis of Limitations for the Integration of EPD Data in IFC. Buildings, 15(15), 2760. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15152760
  5. Bolognesi, C., Bassorizzi, D., Balin, S., & Manfredi, V. (2025). An Overview on LCA Integration in BIM: Tools, Applications, and Future Trends. Digital, 5(3), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital5030031
  6. Burgess, M., Wilson, C., & Fan, Y. V. (2026). Adoption drivers and barriers of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in Europe. Energy and Buildings, 355, 116953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2026.116953
  7. Cabeza, L. F., Rincón, L., Vilariño, V., Pérez, G., & Castell, A. (2014). Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 394–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.037
  8. Del Rosario, P., Palumbo, E., & Traverso, M. (2021). Environmental Product Declarations as Data Source for the Environmental Assessment of Buildings in the Context of Level(s) and DGNB: How Feasible Is Their Adoption? Sustainability, 13(11), 6143. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116143
  9. Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(5), 289–300. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.417
  10. Dixit, M. K. (2019). Life cycle recurrent embodied energy calculation of buildings: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 209, 731–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.230
  11. Feng, H., Zhao, J., Zhang, H., Zhu, S., Li, D., & Thurairajah, N. (2022). Uncertainties in whole-building life cycle assessment: A systematic review. Journal of Building Engineering, 50, 104191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104191
  12. Ferreira, M. T. H. A., Aguiar Costa, A., & Silvestre, J. D. (2026). Integrating life cycle assessment and building information modelling: A purpose-driven approach. Journal of Building Engineering, 118, 115006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2025.115006
  13. Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D., & Suh, S. (2009). Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018
  14. Ghasemi, F., Sari, M. H. M., Yousefi, V., Falsafi, R., & Tamošaitienė, J. (2018). Project Portfolio Risk Identification and Analysis, Considering Project Risk Interactions and Using Bayesian Networks. Sustainability, 10(5), 1609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051609
  15. Gómez-Gil, M., Sesana, M. M., Salvalai, G., Espinosa-Fernández, A., & López-Mesa, B. (2023). The Digital Building Logbook as a gateway linked to existing national data sources: The cases of Spain and Italy. Journal of Building Engineering, 63, 105461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105461
  16. Guízar Dena, A. J., García Hípola, M., & Fernández Bandera, C. (2026). A BIM–LCA Framework for Whole-Life Carbon Assessment Under EPBD: Scope Alignment, Functional Unit Robustness, and Cross-Tool Validation. Applied Sciences, 16(6), 2637. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16062637
  17. Hatefi, S. M., Ahmadi, H., & Tamošaitienė, J. (2025). Risk Assessment in Mass Housing Projects Using the Integrated Method of Fuzzy Shannon Entropy and Fuzzy EDAS. Sustainability, 17(2), 528. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020528
  18. Heijungs, R., & Suh, S. (2002). The Computational Structure of Life Cycle Assessment. In (Editor), Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9900-9
  19. Hillson, D. (2002). Extending the risk process to manage opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 235–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0263-7863(01)00074-6
  20. International Organization for Standardization. (2006). ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines. ISO.
  21. Janssen, C., & Basta, C. (2022). Are good intentions enough? Evaluating social sustainability in urban development projects through the capability approach. European Planning Studies, 32(2), 368–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2136936
  22. Karami, S., de Almeida, J.-P., Ellul, C., & Cardoso, A. (2025). Semantic mapping-based comparison of digital building LogBook and energy performance certificate models - envisaging data reuse. Developments in the Built Environment, 22, 100674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2025.100674
  23. Kookalani, S., Green, S., Luo, P., Alavi, H., Parn, E., Sun, Z., & Brilakis, I. (2026). Mapping digital twin applications in infrastructure and the built environment across research types, methods, sectors, phases, and scales. Automation in Construction, 182, 106778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2026.106778
  24. Larimian, T., & Sadeghi, A. (2019). Measuring urban social sustainability: Scale development and validation. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 48(4), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808319882950 % NOT USED
  25. Lenkevičius E., & Tamošaitiene J. (2026) Insights Into the Entire Building Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): Existing Trends, Challenges and Prospective Framework, Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management.
  26. Li, Q., Yang, W., Kohler, N., Yang, L., Li, J., Sun, Z., Yu, H., Liu, L., & Ren, J. (2023). A BIM–LCA Approach for the Whole Design Process of Green Buildings in the Chinese Context. Sustainability, 15(4), 3629. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043629
  27. Li, X., Jiang, M., Lin, C., Chen, R., Weng, M., & Jim, C. Y. (2025). Integrated BIM-IoT platform for carbon emission assessment and tracking in prefabricated building materialization. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 215, 108122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108122
  28. Lima, M. S. S., Duarte, S., Exenberger, H., Fröch, G., & Flora, M. (2024). Integrating BIM-LCA to Enhance Sustainability Assessments of Constructions. Sustainability, 16(3), 1172. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031172
  29. Lu, Q., Xie, X., Parlikad, A. K., & Schooling, J. M. (2020). Digital twin-enabled anomaly detection for built asset monitoring in operation and maintenance. Automation in Construction, 118, 103277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103277
  30. Marsh, E., Allen, S., & Hattam, L. (2023). Tackling uncertainty in life cycle assessments for the built environment: A review. Building and Environment, 231, 109941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109941
  31. Mêda, P., Calvetti, D., Sousa, H., & Moreira, J. (2024). Data Discovery for Digital Building Logbook (DBL): Directly Implementing and Enabling a Smarter Urban Built Environment. Urban Science, 8(4), 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8040160
  32. Olanrewaju, O. I., Enegbuma, W. I., Donn, M., & Oyefusi, O. N. (2025). Assessment of environmental product declaration and databases: Towards ensuring data quality assurance practices. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 112, 107803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107803
  33. Olanrewaju, O. I., Enegbuma, W. I., & Donn, M. (2024). Operational, embodied and whole life cycle assessment credits in green building certification systems: Desktop analysis and natural language processing approach. Building and Environment, 258, 111569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111569
  34. Opoku, D.-G. J., Perera, S., Osei-Kyei, R., & Rashidi, M. (2021). Digital twin application in the construction industry: A literature review. Journal of Building Engineering, 40, 102726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102726
  35. Otero, M. S., Garnica, T., Montilla, S., Conde, M., & Tenorio, J. A. (2023). Analysis of Sectoral Environmental Product Declarations as a Data Source for Life Cycle Assessment. Buildings, 13(12), 3032. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13123032
  36. Parece, S., Resende, R., & Rato, V. (2024). A BIM-based tool for embodied carbon assessment using a Construction Classification System. Developments in the Built Environment, 19, 100467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2024.100467
  37. Parece, S., Resende, R., & Rato, V. (2025). BIM-based life cycle assessment: A systematic review on automation and decision-making during design. Building and Environment, 282, 113248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113248
  38. Pomponi, F., & Moncaster, A. (2016). Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the built environment – What does the evidence say? Journal of Environmental Management, 181, 687–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.036
  39. Pärn, E., Ghadiminia, N., García de Soto, B., & Oti-Sarpong, K. (2024). A perfect storm: Digital twins, cybersecurity, and general contracting firms. Developments in the Built Environment, 18, 100466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2024.100466
  40. Sacks, R., Eastman, C., Lee, G., & Teicholz, P. (2018). BIM Handbook. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119287568
  41. Seddiki, M., & Bennadji, A. (2026). Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Barriers, Benefits, and Drivers for Digital Building Logbook Adoption in Building Renovation Projects in Europe. Sustainability, 18(6), 2688. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18062688
  42. Strelets, K., Zaborova, D., Kokaya, D., Petrochenko, M., & Melekhin, E. (2025). Building Information Modeling (BIM)-Based Building Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Using Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) File Format. Sustainability, 17(7), 2848. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072848
  43. Tamošaitienė, J., Khosravi, M., Cristofaro, M., Chan, D. W. M., & Sarvari, H. (2021). Identification and Prioritization of Critical Risk Factors of Commercial and Recreational Complex Building Projects: A Delphi Study Using the TOPSIS Method. Applied Sciences, 11(17), 7906. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11177906
  44. Teng, Y., Xu, J., Pan, W., & Zhang, Y. (2022). A systematic review of the integration of building information modeling into life cycle assessment. Building and Environment, 221, 109260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109260
  45. Volk, R., Stengel, J., & Schultmann, F. (2014). Building Information Modeling (BIM) for existing buildings — Literature review and future needs. Automation in Construction, 38, 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.10.023
  46. Xu, J., Teng, Y., Pan, W., & Zhang, Y. (2022). BIM-integrated LCA to automate embodied carbon assessment of prefabricated buildings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 374, 133894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133894
  47. Xu, J., Zhang, Q., Teng, Y., & Pan, W. (2023). Integrating IoT and BIM for tracking and visualising embodied carbon of prefabricated buildings. Building and Environment, 242, 110492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110492
  48. Yao, D., & García de Soto, B. (2024). Assessing cyber risks in construction projects: A machine learning-centric approach. Developments in the Built Environment, 20, 100570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2024.100570
  49. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Tamošaitienė, J. (2010). https://journals.vgtu.lt/index.php/JCEM/article/view/5898. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 16(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2010.03
  50. Železná, J., Felicioni, L., Trubina, N., Vlasatá, B., Růžička, J., & Veselka, J. (2024). Whole Life Carbon Assessment of Buildings: The Process to Define Czech National Benchmarks. Buildings, 14(7), 1936. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14071936
  51. Zhao, Y., Zhang, Y., Wu, X., Wen, X., Chen, C., Teng, Y., & Lau, M. P. B. (2026). A Blockchain-Integrated IoT–BIM Platform for Real-Time Carbon Monitoring in Modular Integrated Construction. Buildings, 16(8), 1587. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16081587
  52. Zou, P. X. W., Zhang, G., & Wang, J. (2007). Understanding the key risks in construction projects in China. International Journal of Project Management, 25(6), 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.03.001
  53. Zou, Y., Ren, Z., Wang, L., Lei, Q., Li, X., Liang, T., & Chen, W. (2026). A BIM-Based Workflow for Early-Stage Embodied Carbon Assessment Using Reusable Assembly Templates and Rule-Based Mapping. Buildings, 16(4), 710. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16040710