Cited by 144Sustainability and Ecological Systems AnalysisEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilitySustainable Building Design and Assessment

The Growth of Urban Building Stock: Unintended Lock‐in and Embedded Environmental Effects

Reyna, Janet L., Chester, Mikhail V.·2015·Journal of Industrial Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Building stocks constitute enduring components of urban infrastructure systems, but little research exists on their residence time or changing environmental impacts. Using Los Angeles County, California, as a case study, a framework is developed for assessing the changes of building stocks in cities (i.e., a generalizable framework for estimating the construction and deconstruction rates), the residence time of buildings and their materials, and the associated embedded environmental impacts. In Los Angeles, previous land‐use decisions prove not easily reversible, and past building stock investments may continue to constrain the energy performance of buildings. The average age of the building stock has increased steadily since 1920 and more rapidly after the post–World War II construction surge in the 1950s. Buildings will likely endure for 60 years or longer, making this infrastructure a quasi‐permanent investment. The long residence time, combined with the physical limitations on outward growth, suggest that the Los Angeles building stock is unlikely to have substantial spatial expansion in the future. The construction of buildings requires a continuous investment in material, monetary, and energetic resources, resulting in environmental impacts. The long residence time of structures implies a commitment to use and maintain the infrastructure, potentially creating barriers to an urban area's ability to improve energy efficiency. The immotility of buildings, coupled with future environmental goals, indicates that urban areas will be best positioned by instituting strategies that ensure reductions in life cycle (construction, use, and demolition) environmental impacts.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jiec.12211

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reyna, J. L., & Chester, M. V.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Reyna, Janet L.
Venue
Journal of Industrial Ecology
Published
2014-12-19
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
524-537
ISSN
  • 1088-1980 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-9290
OpenAlex
W2019890050
Cited by
140
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2
FWCI
7.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Industrial Ecology (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • University of California, Los Angeles
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Sustainability and Ecological Systems Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Building Design and Assessment
Keywords
urban building stock, lock-in, land use decisions, building energy efficiency, life cycle assessment, building materials, Los Angeles County, urban infrastructure

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