Cited by 224Environmental Impact and SustainabilityBIM and Construction IntegrationSustainable Building Design and Assessment

Construction Matters: Comparing Environmental Impacts of Building Modular and Conventional Homes in the United States

Quale, John, Eckelman, Matthew J., Williams, Kyle W., Sloditskie, Greg, Zimmerman, Julie B.·2012·Journal of Industrial Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Modular construction practices are used in many countries as an alternative to conventional on‐site construction for residential homes. While modular home construction has certain advantages in terms of material and time efficiency, it requires a different infrastructure than conventional home construction, and the overall environmental trade‐offs between the two methods have been unclear. This study uses life cycle assessment to quantify the environmental impacts of constructing a typical residential home using the two methods, based on data from several modular construction companies and conventional homebuilders. The study includes impacts from material production and transport, off‐site and on‐site energy use, worker transport, and waste management. For all categories considered, the average impacts of building the home are less for modular construction than for conventional construction, although these averages obscure significant variation among the individual projects and companies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00424.x

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prefabricated wood constructions reduce wood waste from construction activities to nearly zero due to efficient fabrication and the reuse of surplus material, whereas conventional wood constructions waste about 5 to 15% of the wood used in their building.

    “Quale et al. (2012) found that prefabricated wood 121 constructions reduce wood waste from construction activities to nearly zero due to efficient 122 fabrication and the reuse of surplus material, whereas conventional wood constructions waste 123 about 5 to 15% of the wood used in their building.”
  • Concrete reinforcement bars have a low potential for reuse, but the use of modular constructions opens new opportunities.

    “By contrast, concrete reinforcement bars have a low potential for reuse [86], but the use of modular constructions opens new opportunities [91].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Quale, J., Eckelman, M. J., Williams, K. W., Sloditskie, G., & Zimmerman, J. B.
Corresponding author
Eckelman, Matthew J.
Venue
Journal of Industrial Ecology
Published
2012-03-05
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
243-253
ISSN
  • 1088-1980 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-9290
OpenAlex
W2007072372
Cited by
220
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Industrial Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › BIM and Construction Integration
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Building Design and Assessment
Keywords
modular construction, residential housing, environmental impact of construction, life cycle assessment, offsite construction, construction energy use, construction waste management, environmental trade-offs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review