Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation

of sustainability based on emergy theory
Hwang Yi a, *, Ravi S. Srinivasan b, William W. Braham c, David R. Tilley d
a
Paul L. Cejas School of Architecture, College of Communication, Architecture þ The Arts, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA
b
M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction, College of Design, Construction and Planning, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
c
Department of Architecture, School of Design, University of Pennsylvania, 210 S. Street, Meyerson Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
d
Department of Environmental Science and Technology, College of Agriculture & Natural Resources, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study evaluates the sustainability of net-zero energy building (NZEB), in terms of ecosystems
Received 20 July 2016 development on a global environmental scale, with ecological indices and metrics. Employing Howard
Received in revised form Odum's ecosystems theory and emergy (spelled with an “m”), authors attempt to associate building
26 November 2016
energy consumption with thermodynamic networking of energy quality transformation. All upstream
Accepted 12 December 2016
Available online xxx
impacts of energy use are evaluated with emergy-based sustainability indicators. A LEED-platinum
credited NZEB was chosen for tests and a previous study was revisited to set a baseline (non-NZEB) with
refined data for comparative analyses. Findings show that NZEB uses greater nonrenewable emergy to
Keywords:
Net-zero energy building (NZEB)
seek a zero-energy budget despite its greater emergy sustainability index (ESI). It was identified that
Emergy analysis production of renewable energy and the intensification of a climate-modifying function (insulation)
Maximum empower principle required an increase of environmental inputs (construction materials, economic services and labor) with
Emergy sustainability index (ESI) upgraded energy quality. Empower distributions through building components characterize spatial hi-
erarchies of building energy flow. This work demonstrates that building sustainability tends to depend
on increasing power, not efficiency, which justifies maximum empower principle in environmental
building research.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Net-zero energy building (NZEB) has been recognized as a
progressive mission among building professionals to achieve the
highest building performance. Current environmental building
certification programs and agendas, such as Living Building Chal-
lenge, ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers) Vision 2020, and the Architecture 2030 are
related, in a direct or indirect manner, to the vision of NZEB
(Crawley et al., 2009). Net-zero energy (NZE), an integral term of
NZEB, is in effect a hypothetical definition that can be qualified in
different technical terms. Pless and Torcellini (2010) classify NZEB
definitions into four categories by addressing different boundaries
of renewable source production and energy balance; the spatial/
temporal scale that renewable inputs offset environmental/
economical loads and impacts (thereby establishing a design goal
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hyi@fiu.edu (H. Yi).
and strategy) and whether on-site or off-site generation is taken for
a renewable energy option. In other words, NZEB seems easily
achieved once energy cost (use or emission) and generation, at
either a source or site, are balanced over a specific timeframe.
However, despite the wide acceptance of NZEB definitions and
the development of integrated approaches (e.g., life-cycle NZEB,
nearly-zero building, zero embodied-energy building (Marszal
et al., 2011)), obscurity inherent in “net-zero” leads to a knowl-
edge gap in terms of the integration of buildings and extended
environmental contexts. Srinivasan et al. (2012). address three
problems of zero-energy definitions: (i) the zero-energy concept
regards renewable sources as limitless and free, (ii) there is no clear
threshold for the degree of energy reduction, and (iii) the NZEB's
capacity for renewable source production is balanced primarily
with operational energy use or cost. In fact, renewable resources
are far from “free.”; environmental systems expend significant
work to generate wind, tide, and ground heat, and technologies to
capture and concentrate them to be useful necessarily involve
considerable energy investment. Renewable resources are simply
different kinds of energy inputs with shorter renewal frequencies.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
2 H. Yi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18
On the other hand, due to the unbounded limit of energy reduction
in the zero-energy conception, NZEB does not distinguish differ-
ence between a building of high energy users with a large renew-
able substitution and low energy users with a reduced substitution.
No matter how much energy and materials are consumed, net-zero
balancing concerns only whether or not renewable energy meets
immediate demands for building operation, maintenance, and/or
construction. Moreover, in recent life-cycle approaches and the
consideration of embodied energies in the evaluation of NZEB
(Cellura et al., 2014), “net-zero” does not clearly account for the
entire building lifecycle that includes the environmental “forma-
tion” phases of renewable and nonrenewable resources. All these
gaps are fundamentally due to the NZEB's extreme pursuit of the
greatest energy efficiency and reduction, which excludes indirect
influences or positive engagements of man and natural environ-
ment. This reveals a rationale to consider NZEB in a greater coor-
dination of environmental work as well as with the need for a
holistic approach to its performance evaluation.
1.1. Needs for an eco-systemic approach to NZEB evaluation
An underlying principle in current efficiency-oriented ap-
proaches to sustainable building is “maximum energy gains and
efficiency, minimizing loss”; in this conception, energy-saving
mechanisms qualify environmental values of matter and energy
against the scarcity of material and energy resources with a focus
on the final productdbuilding. In this frame, a building is modeled
merely as a machine that overwhelms available resources for its
sustenance; implementation of building technology for high per-
formance ends up an obsession with efficiency. However, a building
should be thought of as an agency that can help the environment
grow and develop consistently (Peacock, 1999). At the global
environment level, what is wasted during a building's lifetime can
be redirected to enliven relationships between environmental
systems or even to augment resource generation (Braham, 2015).
Nevertheless, major sustainability assessment methods do not
allow for broader contexts of building work such as the geo-
biospherical environmental interactions of building components
and human activities. The workplace performance of occupants or
the engagement of productive social elements for the building
operation is as important as purchased energy cost.
An emergy (spelled with an “m”)-based ecological under-
standing of building energy analysis incorporates building perfor-
mance with the complex energetic functioning of environmental
systems. Particularly, emergy evaluation based on the second
thermodynamic principle integrates building, nature, and human
work under the consistent circulation and evolving hierarchies of
global resources; it helps explain building as a form of energetic
organization that underlines positive aspects of source utility; this
approach can characterize the generative potential of an aban-
doned resource, such as construction waste. Energy consumption is
evaluated not only in terms of resource scarcity but also potential
for environmental productivity (a degree of contribution to other
systems). In this approach, renewable energy is not merely a sub-
stitute for nonrenewable energy; in terms of thermodynamic
mechanism, both function to concentrate/dissipate materials and
to degrade energy quality, while increasing the entropy of the
global environmental system (the earth), whereby renewable en-
ergy suppliers can be substantial energy consumers. Accordingly,
the self-production of energy or a net energy balance, in the NZE
concept, aided by renewable resources can be said as a different
way of building's energetic trading with other systems. Introduc-
tion of an ecosystem approach to NZEB is neither to negate use of
the high-end technologies for improving building performance nor
to insist that fossil-fueled building operation and construction must
Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
be avoided at any cost; rather, it is quite opposite. This study admits
that it is necessary to examine building sustainability in a broader
terrain which spans across human economy, nature, and a course of
mutual interaction that defines complex building energy flows.
1.2. Objectives and scope of study
A prevailing NZEB definition focusing on operational energy use
often overlooks broader building systematic actions, such as
rebound effects triggered by increased material inputs for energy
reduction and high efficiency on a global scale. This may prevent
the comprehensive management and decision-making of building
construction and design. To fill this gap, this study seeks to adopt an
emergy analysis method and associated environmental concep-
tions, because emergy metrics measure material, energy, and eco-
nomic consumption in terms of commeasurable global
environmental energy cost. Results present the emergy-based
environmental performance of NZEB, introducing a new under-
standing of building sustainability based on a global ecosystems
principle. A widened NZEB analysis boundary from an ecological
perspective incorporates not only the quantity of energy con-
sumption but also the energy quality (which was slightly noticed by
energy analysis) into the ecosystem's thermodynamic mechanism.
For comparison with the performance of non-NZEB, a similar sized
single-family house named Ellis house (“building A” hereinafter.
Authors revisited our previous study (Yi and Braham, 2015) to
correct and refine the emergy data of this building.) is evaluated.
Experiments with case study buildings are undertaken to evaluate
the environmental performance of NZEB. The targets of our
investigation include:
C Evaluation of sustainability based on methods and indices
from emergy theory.
C Description on the profiles of embodied energetic power and
the resource intensities of NZEB through emergy accounting.
C Evaluation of the qualitative aspects of NZEB's renewable
energy production and material inputs using emergy indices.
C Characterization of NZEB's sustainability based on Odum's
maximum empower principle.
2. New framework for the evaluation of building
sustainability
2.1. Overview of emergy theory
By definition, emergy is “the availability of energy of one kind
that is used up in transformations directly and indirectly to make a
product or service (Odum, 1996).” In the 1980s, H.T. Odum, a pio-
neering ecologist, suggested the ideas of solar embodied ener-
gydemergy, and associative evaluation methods have been
developed later on by Odum and his colleagues (Odum, 1983, 1996).
Emergy theory is fundamentally grounded in the biologists primary
concern on the logic of natural selection; it aims to find with a
holistic view structures and processes that can explicate the com-
plex phenomenological behaviors and relationships of ecosystems,
integrating all living and nonliving elements. The key concept of
this theory is that a different form of energy has a different energy
quality, and the energy transformation work is the dominant player
that determines the quality. Integration of the following two terms
makes emergy distinctive from other environmental accounting
metrics: (i) the “available (useful)” portion of energy quantity; and
(ii) memorizing the contribution of “indirect” energy transfer. The
special emphasis on the available amount of an energy resource
accounts for the thermodynamic basis of the emergy theory,
because the availability identifies how far a system under
 H. Yi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18
observation is positioned from thermodynamic equilibrium, and
thus defines the ability of the target system to perform work in
relation with the ambient environment. In this sense, emergy
overlaps in part with exergy (free-energy relative to the sur-
rounding). However, they are not fully interchangeable with each
other, since emergy recognizes the embodiment of used energies,
i.e., concentration of environmental support in system entities
(Ulgiati, 1999). It does a sum by adding up all the quantities of
useful energy used for every energy transformation process,
including the formation of environmental sources. Therefore,
emergy enables to interface seamlessly the processes of human-
dominated systems and nature.
To provide a uniform language for this concept, Odum believed
that energy at any scale can be compared by measuring it with one
kind of energy, and then he proposed to use solar embodied energy
equivalent, i.e., solar emjoule (sej), in order to convert all different
energy metrics into a single emergy unit.
In emergy accounting, emergy of a product or service is esti-
mated by the multiplication of an inefficiency factor (termed
transformity) and the quantity of available energy output. Total
emergy is thus obtained by the summation of a unit emergy value
of each transformation process such that:
X maximize emergy power.
Em ¼ Tri $Ei (1)
i subdividing the chart into four zones, each of which refers to a
where Em is a total emergy value, Tri is a transformity value of the
ith energy transformation work (of a product or service), and Ei
denotes an available energy output. The output energy is usually
measured in Joule, giving a transformity a unit of sej/J. When it is
more reasonable to measure the final output in mass, transformity
is expressed with a unit of weight (kg or g), and then it becomes sej/
kg or sej/g, so it shall be termed specific emergy, rather than
transformity (Brown, 2005). However, this distinction is occasion-
ally so blurred in accounting as to be referred to both as unit
emergy value (UEV).
2.2. Maximum empower principle and ecosystem development
The significance of an ecological understanding (using emergy
theory) of building performance rests upon teleological principles,
in which enables to explain the causality of systemic changes in the
course of the development of physical/biological systems. In
accordance with Lotka's (1922) statement that natural selection is
bound up with system energetics and the rate of total energy flux
and that material circulation tends to increase, Odum and
Pinkerton (1955) elaborated to formalize it as a theorem of
“optimal efficiency for obtaining maximum power”, which was
later refined as maximum empower principle (MePP); a system
with greater emergy retained per time is fit to survival.
Although complete demonstration of MePP would resort, due to
its macroscopic narratives, to phenomenological observation, MePP
establishes a theoretical basis of a new understanding of building
environmental systems. In particular, the Odum's argument that
systems favor development at no more than 50% energy efficiency
clearly implies that high efficiency does not ensure satisfactory
building performance and, rather, somewhat inefficient actions
shall be required for stable building system operation.
MePP does not simply explain the cause of natural selection but
also addresses why living systems self-organize, so it is related
further to Odum's fifth law (strictly speaking, not a law but a lawful
principle) of thermodynamics, i.e., the principle of system hierar-
chy (Tilley, 2004). This thinking can make an immediate sense to
building design, construction and management, for it enables to
describe the lawful relationship between the availability and
Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
3
embodiment of environmental resources and the organizing
pattern of building energy transfer. Regarding the fifth law, Odum
states, “the energy flows of the universe are organized in an energy
transformation hierarchy (Odum, 1996)”. The concept of energy
hierarchy is meant by that the system's position within the global
environment can be ranked by identifying the ability to perform
work, so a higher ranked system controls the behavior of lower
systems. Here, emergy gains for system development do not
necessarily refer to large accumulation of embodied energy, but
also production (yield) of small high-quality energy. Then, trans-
formity in emergy theory becomes a paramount descriptor of the
hierarchical system organization, for it is the measure of in-
efficiency, the payoff of high-quality energy outputs. Based on the
fifth law, Odum found a functional relation between the quantity
and quality of useful energy produced (measured by transformity)
through system work, as he describes that large quantity tends to
be coupled with low quality (Odum, 1996). Adapted from this
finding, Fig. 1 plots a conceptual line (E-Tr line) by coordinating
energy (quantity) and transformity (quality). From the integration
of the MePP and the fifth law, we expect that the arrangement of
energy quality of a developing system, in the stable surroundings,
would follow an indicated direction of the E-Tr line, in order to
Meanwhile, energy system standing can be categorized by
different type of system development. The results of energy
transformations under a stable environment would be displayed in
zones (II) and (IV), whereas zones (I) and (III) would include un-
stable or biased processes (Fig. 1).
2.3. Emergy-based indices of system performance and
sustainability
Once the ecosystem principle is substantiated, it looks as if we
can draw an immediate consequence that the overarching goal of
building sustainability is maximizing empower of building systems,
if we regard, as widely known in the Brundtland Report (WCED,
1987), that sustainability is directed towards a long-lasting
Fig. 1. System developmental types (adapted from Odum's ecosystem principles) - (I)
Premature type: Systems are underdeveloped or undefined. Systemic energy networks
are inactive and transfers may be reversible (e.g., the earliest geological cycle); (II)
Embryonic type: Systems are underdeveloped, and primarily use environmental en-
ergy of low quality. However, they are ready to be concentrated with different types of
energies for growth and development; (III) Growth type: Thriftless use of high-quality
energies. Systems in this domain may grow in size, but are ill-structured to self-
organizing development. This type is unstable, and sets limit to sustainability (e.g., a
system with imported fossil fuels); (IV) development type: Energy-transferring
structures are well-organized towards maturity and maximizing power. Systems are
likely to develop high-quality energy storages with feedback mechanisms.
4 H. Yi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18

F
M+F : Nonrenewable sources
R+M : Natural (locally available) sources

Local ecosystem
M
E1

B1
R E2
B2 H Ybuilding = R + M + F

I
D

Building ecosystem

Heat drain

R: Renewable energy source from the local area (solar radiation, wind, rain, or geothermal heat) LEGEND
M: Complementary local materials and useful energies (e.g., soil, rock, groundwater, etc.)
F: Feedback from human economy (e.g., industrial raw material, labor, service, etc.)
Source Source energy flow
I: Interaction of imported energy
B1: Material stock in a building form (building construction) Gate/Interaction Internal feedback
B2: Building use/operation D: Dispersed material /ambient heat Storage Material recycling
E1: Recycling of local materials E2: Export of useful material/energy/information
Process Degradation
H: Human (occupant) Y: Yield of potential energy available to other systems

Fig. 2. Generic energy flow diagram for building emergy analysis.

developmental status. However, as Lotka and Odum have
mentioned (Lotka, 1922; Odum and Pinkerton, 1955), such a goal is
valid only as far as larger environmental systems that the building
is part of capacitate to supply useful resources; where resources are
scarce, recycling and renewability would characterize self-
sustaining systems. In a similar vein, under a behavioral uncer-
tainty of the global environment, emergy maximization does not
lead to spendthrift consumption of raw materials and energies;
because, hierarchical structuralization ends up an increased rate of
recycling, as it accumulates emergy a lot more.
The complexity of sustainability evaluation using emergy ac-
counting thus cannot be released unless we envisage a systematic
energy flow network. Fig. 2 presents a general system diagram for
building analysis. This, above all, identifies three major inflows
across a building system: (i) renewable energies and materials (R),
(ii) nonrenewable (purchased) energies and materials (F), and (iii)
raw materials and sources from nature (M). All these sources are
deemed entering the building through an energy gate and trans-
ferred for manufacturing and operation (B1 and B2). The system
boundaries are layered hierarchically, thereby the building is sub-
ject to the local ecosystem where M and R are immediately avail-
able. It is particularly important to note that the building system
self-organizes by controlling the energy gate; building may
recycle or reuse local materials (M), and energy dispersed during
the gate work may return to a local source to reinforce inflows; and
the building system would not make a direct relation to purchased
sources, since it is inefficient to have remote sources under control.
To account for emergy flows, we consider only useful energy flows,
ignoring energy dissipation during each transformation.
This flow-based understanding of system energetics renders
useful indices of the system's ecological performance and sustain-
ability. First, assuming a system is fully mature, total emergy gain,
or yield (Y), of the system is obtained by,
Y ¼RþMþF (2)
This indicates system power if R, M, and F are measured on a
temporal basis. Meanwhile, Odum proposes to use other indicators
to understand system behavior such as: (i) emergy yield ratio (EYR);
(ii) emergy loading ratio (ELR); and (iii) emergy sustainability index
(ESI). They are defined as,
EYR ¼ Y=F (3)
ELR ¼ ðM þ FÞ=R (4)
ESI ¼ EYR=ELR (5)
EYR is employed to evaluate emergy production efficiency
where F denotes economic inputs, while ELR evaluates the ratio of
nonrenewable inputs to perform system work. That said, high EYR
and low ELR are desirable. The degree of system sustainability, ESI,
refers to how much emergy is produced per nonrenewable input
cost. Thus, assuming that an emergy output is constant, the less use
of nonrenewable emergy, the greater ESI value.
2.4. Building emergy analysis (BEmA)
Evaluation models coded in current disciplinary green building
standards and rating systems are essentially mechanistic; an
analysis boundary is simply drawn over a building envelope. Codes

Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
 H. Yi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18
Fig. 3. Front view of the test building (Yong-in, South Korea).
and regulations focus on explaining individual components of
building assemblies, whereby associated descriptions seem to aim
at reinforcing the predictability of building performance and con-
trol. As a result, a building is dealt with as if it is a physical object
indifferent from the surplus dimensions (cultural, social and
economical) of environment. Moreover, energy-based evaluation
methods overestimate an energy-efficiency metric of the compo-
nents. This understanding would be useful only if one kind of en-
ergy (the same quality of input sources) is involved in energy
transformations.
The operation and management of building energy and mate-
rials are inextricably coupled with both local and global environ-
mental contexts; emergy theory enables to conceptualize the
building as an ecosystem, part of the geobiosphere. While emergy
has yet to be fully substantiated, its metric system is very useful in
that it clearly incorporates locally designed systems, such as
buildings, with dynamic energetics of the global environment.
Building emergy analysis (BEmA) is defined as a procedure of
the investigation of building energy use by implementing emergy
1
In BEmA, total emergy intensity for building construction and maintenance,
Embuilding, accounts for all renewable/nonrenewable emergy inputs of building
materials and components during an entire building life cycle (from building
construction to demolition and recycling). An emergy value of a construction as-
sembly is calculated by multiplying materials' UEVs and quantities. Operational
energy use is converted to emergy by considering four different end-use purposes
(heating, cooling, hot water, and lighting). BEmA can be formulated as below.
X X X X
Embuilding ¼ Emmaterials þ Emmaterials þ Emuse þ Emendof life
0   1
X X ij ij
4 l r V Tr ij X X 
3 m Xn
¼ @ þ Hi A þ Epq Trpq þ ðEr ÞTrr
T i
i¼1 j¼1 p¼1 q¼1 r¼1
i; j; p; q; r; m; n2ℕ
where r and V are the unit weight and volume of an assembly (or material), Tr is
UEV, l is number of building components, Hi stands for human labor and services for
manufacturing, m is number of conditioned space, n is number of interior lighting
fixtures, and E is the energy demanded for each equipment and zone. Time variable
(T) is taken into account to calculate the temporal depreciation of energies and
materials.
Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
5
accounting. BEmA explores energy exchanges/transformations in
and outside of a building, and attempts to interpret them as
ecological functioning, where the availability of environmental
resources constrains it. BEmA accounts for the environmental
performance of an individual building in a macroscopic view,
thereby enabling to compare it with other environmental systems.
BEmA eventually helps increase the sustainability of global
environment.
Building emergy study is nascent; be that as it may, due to the
recurring interest of biological analogy to design methodologies of
environmental building and performance evaluation (Hyde, 2015),
BEmA would be gaining popularity for the future building energy
research. At present, several case studies using emergy units have
been introduced by Meillaud and Brown (Meillaud et al., 2005a),
Pulselli et al. (2007), and Rothrock (2014), while Yi et al. (2015) and
Yi and Braham (2015) explore methodological advancement of
BEmA such as the protocol of emergy-based building form opti-
mization and the uncertainty analysis of emergy accounting.1 As for
this study, it should be especially noted that Srinivasan et al. (2012)
attempt to redefine NZEB by proposing a new index defined as
Renewable emergy balance (REB). BEmA would have an immediate
architectural utility for NZEB study due to an ability of the evalu-
ation of indirectly embodied cost invested to generate renewable
energies.
3. Case study: a net-zero energy house in South Korea
3.1. Description of the test building (NZEB)
A case study building is located in the suburb of Seoul, South
Korea. It was constructed in 2009 by SAMSUNG as the first LEED-
platinum building in East Asia (Fig. 3). This building is a one-storey
315.69 m2 NZEB-site for residential use, where renewable energy
production meets demand on the site of 1245.87 m2 (see Table 1). A
primary concept of design was to realize a net-zero definition
within the architectural style of Korean traditional houses. For
climate adaptation, the front is exposed to the south, stretching
from east to west. The main entrance, large openings, and windows
6 H. Yi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18

Table 1 obtained from the technical documents that they submitted to the
Overview of the test building. U.S. Green Building Council. Not only that, in-house detail drawings
Site area 1245.87 m2a and design documents were examined to measure material quan-
Total floor area 315.69 m2b tities and system specifications.
Conditioned floor area/Air volume 254.34 m2/763.02 m3 On the other hand, we referred to updated transformities rela-
Exterior surface areac 192.30 m2
Glazing area (skylight)d 68.12 m2
tive to the global solar emergy baseline of 12.0E þ 24 sej/yr (Brown
Window-to-wall ratiod 23.39% et al., 2016). For some building components whose UEVs were not
Internal mass (surface area)e 178.8 m2 available in the literature, they were calculated for this study (e.g.,
Space-conditioning/Hot Ground source heat pump solar thermal system). Mean values from various databases were
water system (water)/Solar
also used for estimating life spans of materials and components
thermal heating
Renewable-energy BIPV on the roof and [see Supplementary documents].
production systems a micro wind turbine
Automatic thermostat Always on 4. Results and discussions
Glazing Low-e triple/double pane
a
An ancillary building for public information (315.69 m2) is in the same plot Emergy synthesis (emergy evaluation procedure) was carried
(2456.10 m2). Thus, the site area only for the building under study is obtained ac- out by framing system processes into two parts: (i) operation that
cording to the floor area ratio.
b periodically harnesses energy for thermal comfort and other hu-
Except underground mechanic room (84.85 m2).
c
Including roofs, exposed floors and exterior surfaces adjacent to a sunroom man purposes; (ii) manufacturing and maintenance to produce/
covered with double-skin space. sustain a building form that is, in effect, a huge reservoir of mass
d
Considering a conditioned area (heat transfer zone) only. and energy content; Total global environmental cost was obtained
e
If both sides of an interior wall were exposed to a thermal zone, its surface area by combining emergy of each part.
is double counted.

4.1. Operational energy use

are on the south façade, whereas much smaller windows are placed
on the north. Building is lightweight steel-framed, and clad with
hardwood, refurbished wood, zinc, and ceramic stone tiles. 73.3% of
construction materials were acquired from local areas.
Renewable energy is produced in electricity primarily from the
building (roof) integrated photovoltaic panels (BIPV), and the solar
thermal panels on the roof support domestic water heating. This
building adopts a ground source heat pump (GSHP) system, and
HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning) and lighting
systems are monitored with sensors to automate operation. On the
other hand, a similar-size non-NZEB, a detached single-family
house (Building A), was chosen to represent a typical setting of
suburban residential buildings (Yi and Braham, 2015).2
3.2. Data collection method and comparative analysis
BEmA, for numeric calculations, cannot help being exposed
basically to two types of uncertainties (Yi and Braham, 2015), as it
includes all the environmental resources invested to every building
element and process (including building construction, operation
and maintenance): (i) quantities of input energies and materials;
and (ii) transformity/specific emergy. In order to minimize the
uncertainty, authors elaborated to collect data as accurately as
possible from field study, drawings, and reliable emergy
inventories.
First, since certification and construction of the test building
were consulted by the Ove Arup & Partners and SAMSUNG, most of
data about equipment and energy simulation parameters were
2
Description of Building A (Detailed information can be found in Yi and Braham
(2015).
Site area 1265.99 m2 Total floor area
Conditioned area 282.38 m2 Conditioned volume
Exterior surface 460.31 m2 Fenestrationa
Window-to-walla 11.30% Internal massb
Heating/Cooling system Gas furnace/Central
air conditioner
Structure Wood frame
Glazing Double pane
a
Considering conditioned area (heat transfer zone) only.
b
If both sides of an interior wall were exposed to a thermal zone, its surface area
is double counted.
The case study NZEB was planned to be a passive house and
then, energy produced by using active technologies meets the rest
of energy demand. During design stages, this building was expected
to follow the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2004, as the simulation model
for LEED credits reduced end-use energy by 56.0% (baseline:
139.27 kWh/m2yr; proposed: 61.30 kWh/m2yr) with renewable
energy supply of 77.18 kWh/m2yr.
This experiment, however, does not take the reported data for it,
because some of biased simulation inputs, occupancy schedule,
heating/cooling set point, internal loads, etc., show disagreement
with field data. We, thus, estimated energy consumption by
examining (i) meter data of renewable energy production and (ii)
simulation based on the Building America House Simulation Pro-
tocols (Wilson et al., 2014). Annual renewable energy production is
19.6 MWh/yr from the BIPV and 144.7 kWh/yr from a wind turbine
(Appendix A), generating total electricity of 62.64 kWh/m2yr. The
simulation using EnergyPlus shows that on-site energy use is
49.43 kWh/m2yr, so this building achieves 46.8% energy reduction
without the renewable energy and a site-NZEB definition by off-
setting the demand by the energy production (Appendix B). The
remaining electricity of 13.21 kWh/m2yr is assumed to flow back to
grids.
4.2. Emergy synthesis of building manufacturing and maintenance
From an environmental perspective, a building in general can be
conceived of as a climate-modifying machine that can be decom-
posed of five discrete components: (i) site work, (ii) building
structure, (iii) building skin (envelope), (iv) mechanical systems and
equipment, and (v) indoor spaces (interiors) (Braham, 2015; Yi and
Braham, 2015). Even if this classification depends on the degree of
340.73 m2 spatial distinction and functional independency in material allo-
722.01 m3 cation, grouping building elements into these modules works for
35.11 m2 BEmA, because thermodynamic behavior of such physical entities is
931.26 m2
the key to reveal the characteristic systematic organization of
building (Braham, 2015).
Tables 2e5 present the results of emergy accounting for the
manufacturing of the test building. Service for construction in-
cludes all the embodied investment from human economy (human
labor, tax, transportation, etc.) other than direct material deposits.
It is estimated with indirect construction cost and emergy per

Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
 H. Yi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18 7

Table 2
Emergy synthesis of site work and structure (12.0E þ 24 sej/yr baseline).

Item Specification Data Unit UEV (sej/unit) Ref. Life (yr) Emergy (sej) Intensity (sej/yr)

Site work
Wind turbine Rotor and blade 680 kg 8.52E þ 12 (Odum et al., 1987) 20 5.79E þ 15 2.90E þ 14
Control system and inverter 19 kg 2.48E þ 13 (Cabezas et al., 2010) 20 4.59E þ 14 2.29E þ 13
Structure (steel column, thick. 3 mm) 190 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 1.00E þ 15 1.28E þ 13
Concrete 83 kg 1.83E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 1.52E þ 14 1.95E þ 12
Cool tube Steel pipe (rectangular, 40  40 mm) 25 kg 2.75E þ 12 (Haukoos, 1995) 38 6.91E þ 13 1.82E þ 12
Wood grill (cedar, thick. 20 mm) 76 kg 2.62E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 38 1.99E þ 14 5.24E þ 12
Concrete (w/o steel, thick. 150 mm) 541 kg 1.83E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 9.90E þ 14 1.27E þ 13
Pond Rain (precipitation) 10,200 kg 1.10E þ 08 (Odum et al., 2000) 0.1 1.12E þ 12 1.34E þ 13
Pavement Clay stone block 14,640 kg 2.82E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 4.13E þ 16 5.29E þ 14
Wood deck (thick. 20 mm) 570 kg 2.62E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 38 1.49E þ 15 3.93E þ 13
Deck support structure 361 kg 2.75E þ 12 (Haukoos, 1995) 65 9.90E þ 14 1.52E þ 13

Sum w/o service 27.38 ton 5.24E þ 16 9.44E þ 14

w service 1.18E þ 15

Structure
Frames Steel (H-beam) 22,158 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 65 1.17E þ 17 1.80E þ 15
Structure deck Metal sheet (depth 75 mm, thick. 1.2 mm) 5234 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 65 2.76E þ 16 4.25E þ 14
Fire protection Fireproofing plaster (thick. 16 mm) 18,831 kg 2.49E þ 12 (Meillaud et al., 2005b) 65 4.70E þ 16 7.23E þ 14
Foundation Granular fill (thick 200 mm) 30,340 kg 1.70E þ 12 (Cabezas et al., 2010) 78 5.15E þ 16 6.60E þ 14
Concrete (thick. 60 mm) 52,964 kg 1.83E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 9.70E þ 16 1.24E þ 15
Reinforced concrete (thick. 200 mm) 151,702 kg 1.83E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 2.78E þ 17 3.56E þ 15
Steel (5.4% of concrete volume) 26,760 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 1.41E þ 17 1.81E þ 15

Sum w/o service 307.99 ton 7.59E þ 17 1.02E þ 16

w service 1.12E þ 16

Note: Top soil loss and natural landscape were not considered.

dollar (Bastianoni et al., 2009) (There found no significant differ-
ence to the Burnakarn's estimates (Buranakarn, 1998)).
On the other hand, this taxonomy may not clear for all technical
items. Some of them thus are classified not simply into mechanical
systems but according to the location of the subsystem that main
controllers serve. For example, the wind turbine is considered site
work, because its control systems are in the outside. In a similar
vein, borehole and casing pipes of GSHP are subject to systems
though they are under the ground. As for the BIPV, hardware for
collecting solar energy is envelope, whereas battery cabinets are
systems.
Each component measures 27.38 ton (site work, 5.1%), 307.99 ton
(structure, 57.3%), 163.22 ton (envelope, 30.3%), 13.26 ton (systems,
2.5%), and 25.92 ton (interiors, 4.8%), which gives a total weight of
537.77 ton. Structure exhibits the largest deposits of mass, followed
by envelope.
In site work, a large mass of block pavement gives the greatest
emergy content and intensity (5.84E þ 14sej/yr, w/o service), and a
wind turbine catches up the intensity due to the greater UEV and
shorter lifetime. For structure, concrete foundation and steel
structure hold a major share in both emergy (6.85E þ 17sej) and
intensity (9.07E þ 15sej/yr), while others are confined to small
portions.
Table 3 shows accounting results of envelope. It was subdivided
into three units (walls, roof and floor) by tectonic contacts. The
emergy content (w/o service) of walls is 1.49E þ 17sej with an in-
tensity of 3.63E þ 15sej/yr. Roof gives an emergy of 3.23E þ 17sej
and an intensity of 1.14E þ 16sej/yr. Emergy and intensity of floor
are, respectively, 2.08E þ 17sej and 2.68E þ 15sej/yr. It is important
to notice that the intensity of the roof is far greater than others
(314%, 425% increase than walls and floor, respectively), due to the
large energy concentration of the roof material (zinc) and solar
energy collectors.
Systems (Table 4) is subdivided into three parts: (i) water-related
equipment, (ii) infrastructural elements for HVAC and electricity
use, and (iii) supporting elements (batteries of BIPV and thermo-
stat/lighting control units). The emergy content (w/o service) of
each is 2.20E þ 16sej (25.0%), 4.33E þ 16sej (49.2%), and
2.28E þ 16sej (25.9%). Portions of intensities are distributed in a
similar fashion. However, even if the supporting elements are far
lighter (0.92 ton) than other two units (12.34 ton), we notice that its
UEV (2.48E þ 13sej/kg) becomes greater (the final UEVs of other
two are 6.55E þ 12sej/kg and 4.82E þ 12sej/kg).
Interiors (Table 5) is departmentalized in order to assort parts in
tectonic contact and free-standing interior elements (furniture,
electric appliances, lighting devices, etc.). Interior walls and floor
refer to physical assemblies bearing no structural/thermal loads.
Most of building elements in emergy accounting are, basically,
evaluated based on mass/volume. That said, it is necessary to note
that it is more accurate to estimate the emergy values of home
appliances/houseware based on market price, so that they account
for various service inputs in addition to material cost (difference
between mass-based and market price-based estimates was
around 33.8%). We obtained monetary data from design docu-
ments, and survey results from Siniavskaia (2008) were used to
estimate expenditure for furnishings and goods. The synthesis
shows that electronic appliances and goods entail the greatest
emergy intensity (7.66E þ 14sej/yr) due to the short expected life
and human services.
Table 6 presents annually renewed environmental inputs and
system services. Maintenance costs include tax imposed on
the building, spending for repair/replacement, and living
supplies (for this study, we consider only major inputs such as food
and clothes). Notice that the sum of renewable emergy
(1.24E þ 13sej/yr) is much less than that of purchased import
(1.39E þ 16sej/yr).
Finally, total emergy for manufacturing is 1.65E þ 18sej
(3.46E þ 16sej/yr) without service or 1.84E þ 18sej (3.86E þ 16sej/
yr) with service. If we weigh the building with water, furniture and
miscellaneous gadgets for operation and maintenance, the final
weight becomes 688.07 ton, giving the final intensity of
5.25E þ 16sej/yr.
4.3. Emergy flow structure and the evaluation of sustainability
Networking of building emergy flows (Fig. 4) is configured by

Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
8 H. Yi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18

Table 3
Emergy synthesis of building envelope (12.0E þ 24 sej/yr baseline).

Item Specification Data Unit UEV (sej/unit) Ref. Life (yr) Emergy (sej) Intensity (sej/yr)

Walls
Window glazing Triple glass (thick. 17 mm) 2795 kg 1.00E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 33 2.80E þ 16 8.49E þ 14
Double glass (thick. 12 mm) 1341 kg 1.00E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 33 1.34E þ 16 4.08E þ 14
Window frames Aluminum 264 kg 1.61E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 38 4.26E þ 15 1.12E þ 14
PVC 283 kg 7.46E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 38 2.11E þ 15 5.56E þ 13
Window shading Blind screen 430 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 10 5.97E þ 14 5.97E þ 13
Exterior door Steel 113 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 31 5.98E þ 14 1.93E þ 13
Paint 2 kg 1.93E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 11 3.49E þ 13 3.17E þ 12
Substructure Steel pipe (rectangular, 40  40 mm) 741 kg 2.75E þ 12 (Haukoos, 1995) 65 2.04E þ 15 3.13E þ 13
Wall studs Channel (100  50  2 mm,100 3375 kg 2.75E þ 12 (Haukoos, 1995) 65 9.27E þ 15 1.43E þ 14
 45  0.8 mm)
Energy collector Solar cell 9 m2 7.49E þ 14 (Raugei et al., 2006) 20 6.47E þ 15 3.24E þ 14
Panels Gypsum board (double, thick. 12.5 mm) 6641 kg 1.27E þ 12 (Odum, 1996) 52 8.44E þ 15 1.62E þ 14
Cement board (double, thick. 6 mm) 3925 kg 2.94E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 52 1.15E þ 16 2.22E þ 14
Insulation Glass wool 32 K (double, thick. 90 mm) 1844 kg 3.05E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 67 5.62E þ 15 8.39E þ 13
Expanded polystyrene (thick. 160 mm) 1573 kg 8.75E þ 12 (Meillaud et al., 2005b) 67 1.38E þ 16 2.05E þ 14
Interior finish Paint 73 kg 1.93E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 11 1.41E þ 15 1.28E þ 14
Paper 11 kg 3.03E þ 12 (Meillaud et al., 2005b) 11 3.29E þ 13 2.99E þ 12
Exterior finish Terracotta tile cladding 6359 kg 3.89E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 50 2.47E þ 16 4.95E þ 14
Wood siding (reused) 946 kg 8.57E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 50 8.11E þ 15 1.62E þ 14
Miscellaneous Support hardware (galvanized steel) 2508 kg 2.75E þ 12 (Haukoos, 1995) 65 6.89E þ 15 1.06E þ 14
Louver Wood folding shutter 316 kg 5.96E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 31 1.89E þ 15 6.08E þ 13

Roof
Glazing Triple glass (thick. 17 mm) 88 kg 1.00E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 33 8.79E þ 14 2.66E þ 13
Casing frame PVC 7 kg 7.46E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 38 5.08E þ 13 1.34E þ 12
Substructure Steel pipe (rectangular, 40  40 mm) 3212 kg 2.75E þ 12 (Haukoos, 1995) 65 8.83E þ 15 1.36E þ 14
Exterior finish Zinc 1085 kg 8.64E þ 13 (Odum, 1996) 31 9.38E þ 16 3.02E þ 15
Aluminum 724 kg 1.61E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 31 1.17E þ 16 3.76E þ 14
Louver Aluminum 33 kg 1.61E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 31 5.34E þ 14 1.72E þ 13
Vapor barrier HDPE (double layer, thick. 0.2 mm) 4 kg 6.70E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 2.73E þ 13 3.50E þ 11
Roof panels Plywood (thick. 12 mm) 2353 kg 1.83E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 38 4.31E þ 15 1.13E þ 14
Insulation Expanded polystyrene (thick. 430 mm) 3942 kg 8.75E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 67 3.45E þ 16 5.15E þ 14
Planting Sedum-planted green area 78 m2 4.20E þ 14 (Rustagi et al., 2008) 78 3.28E þ 16 4.20E þ 14
Photovoltaic Solar module (1326  716 mm, 180 EA) 174 m2 7.49E þ 14 (Raugei et al., 2006) 20 1.30E þ 17 6.52E þ 15
Support hardware (galvanized steel) 407 kg 2.75E þ 12 (Haukoos, 1995) 65 1.12E þ 15 1.72E þ 13
Light pipe Dome and diffuser (polycarbonate) 7 kg 7.32E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 33 5.27E þ 13 1.60E þ 12
Light pipe: Tube and casing (aluminum) 38 kg 1.61E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 33 6.10E þ 14 1.85E þ 13
Solar thermal Solar energy collector 142 kg 2.98E þ 13 a 20 4.23E þ 15 2.12E þ 14

Ground floor
Insulation Expanded polystyrene (thick. 350 mm) 556 kg 8.75E þ 12 (Meillaud et al., 2005b) 67 4.86E þ 15 7.26E þ 13
Vapor barrier HDPE (double layer, thick. 0.2 mm) 4 kg 6.70E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 2.54E þ 13 3.25E þ 11
Insulation cover Concrete (thick. 60 mm) 41,034 kg 1.83E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 7.52E þ 16 9.64E þ 14
Lightweight concrete (thick. 40 mm) 23,261 kg 2.94E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 6.83E þ 16 8.76E þ 14
Slab cover Cement mortar (thick. 30 mm) 20,476 kg 2.94E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 6.01E þ 16 7.71E þ 14

Sum w/o service 163.22 ton 6.81E þ 17 1.77E þ 16

w service 1.89E þ 16
a
Estimated in this study (see Appendix B).

applying the emergy accounting results (Tables 2e6 and Appendix
C) to the generic diagramming definition (Fig. 2). Fig. 4(a) illustrates
the NZEB's energetic organization of the five building system
components, including all embodied energies and ecosystem ser-
vices invested to the NZEB at a steady state of operation and
maintenance. Note that air-conditioning and light affecting thermal
loads (heating and cooling) are represented within the envelope
(1.17E þ 16sej/yr, including body heat and internal heat from
equipment) and that occupants are in building use, disposing water
and solid waste of 9.42E þ 15sej/yr. It should be noted that non-
NZEB's emergy networking is more straightforward, for it does not
develop robust energy feed-back flows (Fig. 4(b)). It is clear that
NZEB augments empower of system components by developing
mutual energy exchanges.
Total emergy input to each component is calculated by source as
shown in Table 7. To compare the NZEB's results with non-NZEB, we
chose a building similar to the test building in size (site area:
1265.99 m2; floor area: 340.73 m2; and conditioned area:
282.38 m2). Emergy data were obtained from the refinement of the
previous study (Yi and Braham, 2015). For both buildings, we find
that material acquisition from the site boundary (M) is null and
emergy spending for interiors is theoretically the same. Never-
theless, significant differences are revealed in structure, system,
and envelope; Building A imports a large amount of nonrenewable
emergy (1.21E þ 16sej/yr) for systems, since it employs fossil-fueled
HVAC equipment (a gas furnace and an electric direct-expansion
conditioner), whereas the NZEB shows a far less value
(0.34E þ 16Esej/yr). Nevertheless, it is found that NZEB's reduction
of the operational emergy does not offset an increase of non-
yielding emergy in structure and envelope, which totals
3.02E þ 16sej/yr, and is greater than Building A (1.13E þ 16sej/yr).
This result clearly indicates a rebound effect; the operational en-
ergy reduction of NZEB ends up increasing total environmental
cost; that said, NZEB shows lesser ELR (2124.07) and greater ESI
(0.00001), since the NZEB uses a larger amount of renewable
emergy. Therefore, it follows that NZEB is more sustainable than
non-NZEB.

Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
 H. Yi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18 9

Table 4
Emergy synthesis of mechanical systems and pipe/duct work (12.0E þ 24 sej/yr baseline).

Item Specification Data Unit UEV (sej/unit) Ref. Life (yr) Emergy (sej) Intensity (sej/yr)

Water treatment system and pipe work

Water reuse equipment Septic and equalization tank (2 ton each) 317 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 47 1.67E þ 15 3.56E þ 13
Membrane bio reactor (1ton) 200 kg 2.48E þ 13 (Cabezas et al., 2010) 15 4.96E þ 15 3.31E þ 14
Rainwater storage Stainless steel tank (30 ton) 2379 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 47 1.26E þ 16 2.67E þ 14
Grey water storage Stainless steel tank (1 ton) 79 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 47 4.19E þ 14 8.91E þ 12
Supply pumps Motor pump 9 kg 8.52E þ 12 (Odum et al., 1987) 16 7.92E þ 13 4.95E þ 12
Water pipes Carbon Steel (D50 mm supply, D25 mm) 257 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 47 1.35E þ 15 2.88E þ 13
PVC (drainage) 72 kg 7.46E þ 12 (Meillaud et al., 2005b) 47 5.33E þ 14 1.13E þ 13
Insulation (polystyrene, thick. 15 mm) 44 kg 8.75E þ 12 (Meillaud et al., 2005b) 47 3.85E þ 14 8.19E þ 12

HVAC, wiring, and duct work

Ventilation duct Galvanized steel (supply and return) 1487 kg 2.75E þ 12 (Haukoos, 1995) 17 4.09E þ 15 2.40E þ 14
Insulation (polystyrene, thick. 20 mm) 152 kg 8.75E þ 12 (Meillaud et al., 2005b) 17 1.33E þ 15 7.80E þ 13
Cool tube duct Stainless steel (D300 mm, thick. 1.2 mm) 538 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 17 2.84E þ 15 1.67E þ 14
Heat recovery Casing and fan (steel, thick. 1.2 mm) 33 kg 8.52E þ 12 (Odum et al., 1987) 13 2.81E þ 14 2.16E þ 13
Insulation (glass wool, thick. 20 mm) 1 kg 3.05E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 13 3.35E þ 12 2.58E þ 11
Electric wiring Copper wire 133 kg 8.61E þ 13 (Meillaud et al., 2005b) 67 1.14E þ 16 1.70E þ 14
GSHP Heat pump 296 kg 8.52E þ 12 (Odum et al., 1987) 16 2.52E þ 15 1.57E þ 14
Borehole pipe (PVC, D30 mm) 162 kg 7.46E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 47 1.21E þ 15 2.57E þ 13
Casing pipe (steel, D150 mm) 3390 kg 2.75E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 47 9.31E þ 15 1.98E þ 14
Grouting material (Bentonite) 1447 kg 1.70E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 47 2.46E þ 15 5.23E þ 13
Buffer tank (1ton) 512 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 47 2.70E þ 15 5.75E þ 13
Water heater 16 kg 8.52E þ 12 (Odum et al., 1987) 14 1.36E þ 14 9.74E þ 12
Expansion tank (200 L) 304 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 47 1.61E þ 15 3.42E þ 13
Circulation pipes 60 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 47 3.17E þ 14 6.74E þ 12
Circulation pumps 16 kg 8.52E þ 12 (Odum et al., 1987) 16 1.32E þ 14 8.25E þ 12
Pipe insulation (thick. 15 mm) 10 kg 8.75E þ 12 (Meillaud et al., 2005b) 47 8.82E þ 13 1.88E þ 12
Air conditioner Ceiling cassette unit (one-way) 88 kg 8.53E þ 12 (Odum et al., 1987) 15 7.47E þ 14 4.98E þ 13
Heating coil Polybuthylene pipe (thick. 1.6, D10 mm) 120 kg 7.46E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 47 8.92E þ 14 1.90E þ 13
Distribution controller 8 kg 8.53E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 20 6.99E þ 13 3.50E þ 12
Solar thermal Controller and heat exchanger 14 kg 8.52E þ 12 (Odum et al., 1987) 20 1.19E þ 14 5.96E þ 12
heating system Drain and hot water tank 180 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 47 9.50E þ 14 2.02E þ 13
Pumps 7 kg 8.52E þ 12 (Odum et al., 1987) 16 6.30E þ 13 3.94E þ 12
Pipe (stainless steel, D10 mm) 5 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 47 2.53E þ 13 5.39E þ 11
Insulation (glass wool, thick. 25 mm) 1 kg 8.75E þ 12 (Meillaud et al., 2005b) 47 6.93E þ 12 1.47E þ 11
Other systems
Control system Sensor, switching server, and displayer 120 kg 2.48E þ 13 (Cabezas et al., 2010) 29 2.97E þ 15 1.03E þ 14
Storage/battery Battery cabinets for solar energy systems 800 kg 2.48E þ 13 (Cabezas et al., 2010) 24 1.98E þ 16 8.26E þ 14

Sum w/o service 13.26 ton 8.81E þ 16 2.96E þ 15

w service 3.43E þ 15

4.4. Analysis of system hierarchy and energy quality
Empower principle states that an ecosystem constructs a self-
organizing structure of emergy power among system components
so the system obtains power efficiently. In order to identify a
relationship appeared between compartmental hierarchies and the
self-organizing work of the NZEB, we first computed empower of
each component by considering multiple internal and external
emergy inflows per time. Each category in the hierarchy represents
building elements listed in Tables 2e6. For example, photovoltaic
panels belong to envelope, and GSHP and water treatment equip-
ment belong to systems. On the other hand, operational energies
and resources are categorized according to where initial in-
vestments occur, since they are transferred all the way through the
hierarchical system network (Fig. 4). Fig. 5 displays the results in
comparison with the non-NZEB (building A).
Power profiles appear similar for both buildings without
considering non-construction elements (water, operational en-
ergies, furnishings and goods). For building manufacturing, em-
powers peak at envelope and structure, while powers of site work,
systems, and interiors stay low. In terms of building thermody-
namics, we may generalize from this finding that building con-
struction processes accumulate a certain magnitude of power for
the building envelope to provide thermal comfort by climate
modification. Shifting attention to operation and management,
engagement of occupants' needs causes this relationship to
reorganize; the empower of systems of Building A increases by the
fossil fuel use for HVAC, and interiors also builds on a markedly
accrued power due to the huge imports of goods and living sup-
plies. Building A eventually reveals a power arrangement in order
of site work, structure, systems, envelope, and interiors, which par-
allels the Braham's (2015) finding of an energetic hierarchy of
building components.
NZEB's system power is overall greater than non-NZEB (Fig. 5).
However, empowers of systems and interiors are similar to Building
A. As though NZEB does not require operational fuel, it is noticeable
that NZEB's empower of systems is not decreased as such, because it
consumes enormous non-renewable inputs for manufacturing
high-efficient HVAC equipment (Table 4). Likewise, despite the
introduction of high-efficient home appliances (Table 5), NZEB's
empower of interior use is not reduced, because it is not concerned
with occupants' behavioral patterns or lifestyles. Moreover, it is
important to note that NZEB's total empower peaks at envelope.
This is due primarily to the enormous concentration of insulation
materials and the use of environmentally expensive (high-trans-
formity) resources for renewable energy production (e.g., BIPV
panels on the roof and walls). This identifies that the ability of
climate-modification and heat transfer stability provided by the
envelope as well as non-renwable energy supply plays the most
significant role in the NZEB's energy transformation mechanism.
NZEB sacrifices the ability to process living services for thermal
comfort.

Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
10 H. Yi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18

Table 5
Emergy synthesis of interior work (12.0E þ 24 sej/yr baseline).

Item Specification Data Unit UEV (sej/unit) Ref. Life (yr) Emergy (sej) Intensity (sej/yr)

Interior walls/doors
Wall studs Channel (100  50  2 mm) 1431 kg 2.75E þ 12 (Haukoos, 1995) 65 3.93E þ 15 6.05E þ 13
Panels Gypsum board (double, thick. 12.5 mm) 3157 kg 1.27E þ 12 (Odum, 1996) 52 4.01E þ 15 7.72E þ 13
Interior finish Paint 63 kg 1.93E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 11 1.22E þ 15 1.11E þ 14
Wood siding (reused) 98 kg 8.57E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 50 8.44E þ 14 1.69E þ 13
Paper 1 kg 3.03E þ 12 (Meillaud et al., 2005b) 11 2.31E þ 12 2.10E þ 11
Ceramic tile (thick. 5 mm) 127 kg 3.89E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 12 4.95E þ 14 4.12E þ 13
Adhesives 37 kg 4.83E þ 11 (Buranakarn, 1998) 12 1.79E þ 13 1.49E þ 12
Interior doors Wood 92 kg 2.62E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 31 2.41E þ 14 7.78E þ 12

Interior floor
Floor finish Hardwood flooring (thick. 15 mm) 1338 kg 1.12E þ 12 (Cabezas et al., 2010) 57 1.50E þ 15 2.63E þ 13
Ceramic tile flooring (thick. 10 mm) 3361 kg 3.89E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 57 1.31E þ 16 2.29E þ 14
Wood deck (thick. 20 mm) 364 kg 2.62E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 38 9.53E þ 14 2.51E þ 13
Deck support structure (steel pipe) 230 kg 2.75E þ 12 (Haukoos, 1995) 65 6.33E þ 14 9.73E þ 12
Polyvinyl tile 142 kg 8.03E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 12 1.14E þ 15 9.47E þ 13
Adhesives 983 kg 4.83E þ 11 (Cabezas et al., 2010) 12 4.75E þ 14 3.96E þ 13

Ceiling
Miscellaneous Support hardwares (galvanized steel) 439 kg 2.75E þ 12 (Haukoos, 1995) 65 1.21E þ 15 1.86E þ 13
Panels Gypsum board (double, thick. 9.5 mm) 4825 kg 1.27E þ 12 (Odum, 1996) 52 6.13E þ 15 1.18E þ 14
Interior finish Paint 84 kg 1.93E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 11 1.62E þ 15 1.47E þ 14

Electronic appliances, furniture, lighting and housewares

Home theater UN55B6000VF 8250 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 15 3.93E þ 15 6.05E þ 13
Desktop DB-X150-CA160/P2370 2300 810 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 15 4.01E þ 15 7.72E þ 13
Laptop NP-X360 690 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 15 1.22E þ 15 1.11E þ 14
Laser printer CLP 315 K 180 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 15 8.47E þ 14 1.69E þ 13
Fridge-freezer HBRL26GUL/R 1620 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 15 2.31E þ 12 2.10E þ 11
Freezer HRM316GWMQ 890 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 15 4.95E þ 14 4.12E þ 13
Electric oven HSB-C427AST/DER-3800GB 1140 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 15 1.79E þ 13 1.49E þ 12
Washing machine SEW-HAR149AUR 650 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 15 2.41E þ 14 7.78E þ 12
Furniture Furnishings 4789 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 24 6.65E þ 15 2.77E þ 14
Miscellaneous goods 493 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 24 6.85E þ 14 2.85E þ 13
Bath Bathtub, porcelain 35 kg 3.89E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 30 1.38E þ 14 4.59E þ 12
Toilets 49 kg 3.89E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 30 1.92E þ 14 6.41E þ 12
Lavatories 16 kg 3.89E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 30 6.18E þ 13 2.06E þ 12
Lighting fixtures LED, 20 W flood light (2 ea.) 44 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 24 6.11E þ 13 2.55E þ 12
and luminaires LED, 24 W down light (38 ea.) 950 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 24 1.32E þ 15 5.50E þ 13
LED, 40 W panel light (6 ea.) 240 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 24 3.33E þ 14 1.39E þ 13
LED, 60 W panel light (23 ea.) 920 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 24 1.28E þ 15 5.33E þ 13
Fluorescent light tube, 24 W (7 ea.) 105 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 24 1.46E þ 14 6.08E þ 12

Sum w/o service 25.92 ton 6.81E þ 16 2.79E þ 15

w service 3.82E þ 15

Table 6
Emergy synthesis of construction labor, maintenance, and renewable energy inputs (12.0E þ 24 sej/yr baseline).

Item Specification Data Unit UEV (sej/unit) Ref. Emergy (sej) Intensity (sej/yr)

Various goods and services for operation and maintenance

Living supplies Food and apparel 5346 $/yr 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 7.43E þ 15
Maintenance Building structure 259 $/yr 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 3.60E þ 14
HVAC/Water systems 89 $/yr 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 1.24E þ 14
Appliances/Equipment 936 $/yr 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 1.30E þ 15
Furnishings 779 $/yr 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 1.08E þ 15
Disposal systems 10 $/yr 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 1.39E þ 13
Public service Property tax 2548 $/yr 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 3.54E þ 15

Water Public water supplies 57,160 kg/yr 2.38E þ 08 (Buenfil, 2001) 1.36E þ 13

Renewable sources
Solar Absorbed to photovoltaic system 9.27.E þ 11 J/yr 1 (Odum, 1996) 9.27E þ 11
Absorbed to solar thermal system 3.44.E þ 10 J/yr 1 (Odum, 1996) 3.44E þ 10
Transmission to indoor space 1.19E þ 10 J/yr 1 (Odum, 1996) 1.19E þ 10
Winda Kinetic energy for wind turbine 1.49.E þ 09 J/yr 8.45E þ 02 (Odum, 1996) 1.26E þ 12
Rainwaterb Chemical potential of rainwater 4.31.E þ 08 J/yr 2.31E þ 04 (Odum, 1996) 9.96E þ 12
Geothermal heatc Energy to ground heat exchanger 1.74.E þ 07 J/yr 9.10E þ 03 (Odum et al., 2000) 1.58E þ 11
Sum 9.75E þ 11 J/yr 1.24E þ 13

Construction service (labor and indirect cost)d 135,425 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 1.88E þ 17 1.30E þ 15

Total (manufacturing w/o service) 537.77 ton 1.65E þ 18 3.46E þ 16

Total (manufacturing w/service) 537.77 ton 1.84E þ 18 3.86E þ 16
Total(construction þ operation and maintenance) 688.07 ton 5.25E þ 16
a
Wind for natural ventilation was not considered.
b
Gibbs chemical energy of rainwater 4.95 J/g.
c
Geothermal heat, Bentonite specific heat (800 J/kgK), density (1447 kg), Delta T ¼ 15  C.
d
8.01E þ 14 sej/m2 (Buranakarn, 1998)  315.69 m2 ¼ 2.53E þ 17 sej.

Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
 H. Yi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18 11

Fig. 4. Summarized emergy flow diagram ((a) NZEB, (b) non-NZEB). R: Renewable energy (low-quality energy), F: Purchased energy (high-quality feedback from human economy).

Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
12 H. Yi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18

Table 7
Calculation of emergy inputs and environmental indices (Unit: E þ 15sej/yr).

Building A NZEB

R M F Y R M F Y

Site work 2.28 0 0.011 1.18 0

Structure 4.57 0 11.21 0
Systems 12.05 0 0.012 3.44 1.71
Envelope 0.000063 6.41 0 0.00097 18.94 0
Interiors 17.18 8.35 17.67 9.42
Total 0.000063 0 42.49 0 0.025 0 52.45 11.13
a
EYR 0.20 0.21
ELR 679,985 2124.07
ESI 0.00000029 0.000010
a
It is assumed that systems are in a stable operation so that total emergy inputs and yields are equal, if a system component transfers energy to other systems.

(E16 sej/yr)

3.50
Manufacturing (Building A)
3.00 Manufacturing (NEZB)
Total (Building A)
2.50 Total (NZEB)
Empower (input)

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
Sitework Structure System Envelope Interiors

Fig. 5. Empower profile: hierarchy of useful energy embodiment per time.

In Fig. 5, we find that a building self-organizes differently during
different stages of development. How does this structural differ-
ence of empower affect systematic behavior and the quality of
system components, operational energies and energy production?
We thus evaluate the change of transformity values, since they are
parameters of energy quality change (Section 2.2). To identify an
energy hierarchy of construction work, Fig. 6 compares specific
emergy (UEV) of each component. Interestingly, unlike the power
organization, systems holds the top for both cases (3.35E þ 13sej/kg
and 1.10E þ 13sej/kg, respectively for Building A and the NZEB). This

Fig. 6. UEVs of system components for construction (with service).

Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
 H. Yi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18 13

Table 8
Operational energy use and transformity.

Item Building A NZEB

Quantity Emergy Transformity Quantity Emergy Transformity

( E10 J/yr) ( E15 sej/yr) ( E5 sej/J) ( E10 J/yr) ( E15sej/yr) ( E5 sej/J)

Energy for lighting and 1.90 4.84 2.54 3.49 5.10 1.46
equipmenta
Energy for space conditioning 6.20 5.32 0.86 0.57 24.50 43.07
Domestic hot water heatingb 1.40 1.17 0.83 0.19 0.48 2.47
Waterc 0.10 0.71 7.24 0.02 0.60 31.84
Electricity back to the grid 1.50 1.74 1.15
a
Lighting and plug-in loads.
b
Hot water use is 28.8% of total; 86,526.1 kg/yr (Building A) and 16,461.9 kg/yr (NZEB).
c
Gibbs chemical energy of water: 4.6 J/g at room temperature (25  C) and 14.0 J/g for hot water (45  C).

reveals that the finest energy is invested in manufacturing build-
ing's mechanical systems, and thus compartmental hierarchies
during construction become inconsistent with self-organizing
structures towards increasing power. Note that NZEB relieves the
uneven distribution of energy wealth, and there found little sig-
nificant difference in transformities of two buildings. The similarity
in total transformity (0.33sej/kg and 0.34sej/kg) indicates that
NZEB does not necessarily ensure high-quality energy transfer in
building fabrication and interior work, despite greater emergy
input and empower of NZEB in structure, envelope and interiors.
In a similar way, the emergence of a compartmental hierarchy
during building operation is examined with UEVs. However, due to
complexity, the estimation of an operational UEV of a building
component would be biased if we simply represent mixed accu-
mulation of different types of energies with a single unit such as
mass (kg) or energy (J). For this reason, we attempt to investigate
transformities of operational environmental sources. Table 8 and
Fig. 7 compare energy, emergy inflows and transformities of
Building A and the NZEB. Results show that non-NZEB consumes
basically a larger amount of operational energy; fossil-fuel based
operation needs 6.20E þ 10 J/yr for conditioning, 1.40E þ 10 J/yr
for water heating, and 9.80E þ 9 J/yr for water use, while the NZEB
reduces them to 5.69E þ 9 J/yr, 1.93E þ 9 J/yr, and 1.90E þ 8 J/yr
respectively. While energy transformities of both cases are
apparently greater than the estimates for public supply (elec-
tricity: 2.21E þ 5sej/J; natural gas: 5.64E þ 4sej/J (Bastianoni et al.,
2009); and water: 5.17E þ 4sej/J (Buenfil, 2001)), it is particularly
important to note that NZEB's transformities of conditioning en-
ergy and water are far greater than Building A (Fig. 7), because it
demonstrates that NZEB concentrates a huge amount of mass and
energy to reduce operational source use. On the other hand,
electricity produced by BIPV is environmentally cheaper than that
from a fired-power plant. Transformity of the electricity that NZEB
produces measures around 1.15E þ 5sej/J (similar to 1.14E þ 05sej/
J from (Brown et al., 2012)). It shows that a mixture of renewable
emergy reduces energy quality. Meanwhile, even if the NZEB
adopted high-efficient electric appliances and LED lighting (refer
to items in Table 5), energy demand to support them has been
increased to 3.49E þ 10 J/yr, and transformity ends up lowered.
This reveals that high efficiency causes energy/material use to
increase.
Based on this result, the quantity-quality relationship of each
energy source is plotted as shown in Fig. 8. Although plot points are
not exactly consistent with the linear E-Tr line in Fig. 1, NZEB's
energy production roughly belongs to Zone I and IV, while Building
A is in Zone I and II. Each building component of the NZEB con-
tributes high-quality energy in small quantity, whereas Building A's
components produce low-quality energy in large quantity. This
demonstrates that NZEB is ecologically a more developed system,
and the main target of this development is to produce finer en-
ergies for better thermal comfort.
Importantly, note that NZEB's greater sustainability was fol-
lowed by an additional increment of empower (þ1.70E þ 16sej/yr)
which decreased overall building system efficiency simultaneously.
This demonstrates that building sustainability at the global envi-
ronmental level (geobiosphere) is subject to increasing “power”,
compromising “efficiency”, which is consistent with the Lotka and
Odum's examination about phenomenological characteristics of

Fig. 7. Transformity of operational energy and on-site energy production.

Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
14 H. Yi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18
Fig. 8. Quantity-quality diagram for major end-use energies.
living/non-living system's self-organization (Lotka, 1922; Odum
and Pinkerton, 1955). The investigations of UEV and empower
changes also support that NZEB constructs a systemic hierarchy of
energy transfer for obtaining power and self-organizes its compo-
nents to augment useful energy import. On the other hand, the E-Tr
profiles in Fig. 8 indicate that sustainable building works to increase
energy “quality” in such a way that ecosystems develop (Li et al.,
2013); i.e., NZEB's reduced energy consumption leads to the pro-
duction of high-quality energies (or inefficiency of energy trans-
formation), which demands an additional concentration of
materials and other complementary energies.
Based on these findings, further statements could be drawn such
that: (i) building sustainability parallels the development of natural
systems and (ii) high efficiency of HVAC systems necessarily ends
up low efficiency of the whole building system. A comprehensive
understanding of building environmental performance to include
natural work and human economy suggests that the global
ecosystem principles (MePP and self-organization) be applicable to
environmental building design, construction, and management. It
is necessary to understand that the sustainability of high-
performance buildings is obtained not by increasing operational
efficiency but from an accumulation of power. Therefore, buildings
designed within the current technological context necessarily work
to amplify the embodiment of useful energy output per time.
Meanwhile, it should also be noted that the justification of maxi-
mizing power depends on the carrying capacity of the global
environmental system and resource availability, as MePP works
only if external resources are plentiful. If the resources are very
limited and not readily available, maximizing efficiency would
work for sustainability.
Tradeoffs occur between energy performance, material inputs,
and occupant needs for the high-quality life style of NZEB. In an
ecological term, the tradeoffs are an evidence of self-organization
so that buildings perform with different kinds of energies at an
appropriate level of transfer efficiency. This suggests a new building
agenda that environmental buildings concern, where and how
renewable resources are involved for sustainable self-organizing
processes as well as generative use of imported sources such as
energy circulation through feedback and export to other systems.
Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
5. Conclusions
This study presented an eco-systemic framework of building
sustainability assessment and emergy indices of NZEB performance
evaluation, under the hypothesis that buildings can be understood
as self-organizing thermodynamic systems (Braham, 2015). Emergy
theory was employed to suggest a holistic environmental ac-
counting method and technical indicators to evaluate all upstream
environmental loads (considering renewable and non-renewable
energies from natural formation phases) and comprehensive en-
ergy flow-networking by aggregating the building life cycle of
construction, operation, and maintenance. Emergy accounting and
comparative analyses of NZEB and non-NZEB indicated that
reduced (operational) energy use of the NZEB caused non-
renewable resource inputs to increase (þ2.78E þ 15sej/yr).
Despite this greater use of non-renewable resources, it was iden-
tified that the NZEB was more sustainable (greater ESI of 9.99E‒5)
than the non-NZEB (2.89E‒7), although the NZEB's ESI is quite low
compared to natural systems' (ESIs of 0.1e5 (Brown and Ulgiati,
1997)). The low ESI values mean that buildings are environmen-
tally “degenerative” and emergy-inefficient, because, unlike actual
natural systems, buildings (technically non-living systems) produce
lesser emergy outputs compared to the enormous storage of inputs.
The NZEB's increased intake of renewable inputs and energy pro-
duction could be desirable for global sustainability, but it is not as
much as the notion of “net-zero” implies. This suggests that the
sustainable status of NZEB may not be overwhelming than non-
NZEB or other environmental systems, and there certainly exist
untapped alternatives to have buildings more sustainable than
NZEB.
Results also demonstrated that an ecological self-organization
can be identified at a single building level. for example, a sharp
temperature gradient inside thickened exterior walls of the NZEB
(or a passive house) ends up producing greater entropy and energy
dissipation, which led to high-quality energy and greater emergy of
the envelope. Obtaining the high-quality spatial thermal comfort is
very similar to that a human body needs greater useful energy to
maintain physiological homeostasis in an unfavorable condition.
Therefore, emergy-based investigations in building energy study
 H. Yi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18 15

could lead to an understanding that high building performance is
the result of global-scale evolutionary living processes and sus-
tainable buildings perform for a teleological goald“maximizing
power”, which ensures the symbiotic development of buildings and
other environmental systems.
Emergy basically deals with macroscopic aspects of system
work, which gives rise to an issue of interpretation. Arguments
made in this study may not be perfectly available for all cases, for
presentation was necessarily restricted to select case study build-
ings. Findings are also exposed to the uncertainty of data assurance,
since MePP has been substantiated by phenomenological in-
vestigations. That said, it is very important to note that the
immediacy of an energy measure underestimates or even conceals
the complex embeddedness and connectedness of building energy
flows, disregarding large-scale thermodynamics (of economy, cul-
ture, information, etc.) surrounding buildings. Emergy theory and
system-based understandings unfold unexplainable dimensions of
building performance that energy and efficiency cannot describe,
for emergy is capable of measuring various physical/nonphysical
substances in the earthdliving organism, building, human-
dominated systems, and even spirit or psychology (Odum, 2007).
At the end of the day, this eco-systemic understanding of building
performance and sustainability has a great deal of potential to
characterizing interdisciplinary dimensions of building perfor-
mance and energy use, because, as Ulanowicz (1986) states,
ecological growth and development are common phenomena
across all disciplines.
Appendix A

Table A1
Calculation of environmental inputs to NZEB.

Month Rainwater Water use Water Effective Wind turbine Wind Emergy Solar PV PV efficiency Emergy to PV Emergy to
collection (L) (L) reuse (L) wind hours production (E11 sej) radiation production (%) system (E10 sej) solar thermal
(hr) (kWh) (kWh/m2) (MWh) system (E9 sej)

1 0 4854.6 2495.8 388 14.0 1.22 65.2 1.07 9.96 4.69 1.88
2 0 4384.8 2254.3 453 16.4 1.42 77.8 1.28 9.99 5.57 2.24
3 5000 4854.6 2495.8 401 14.5 1.26 107.3 1.76 9.80 7.84 3.09
4 4500 4698.0 2415.3 441 16.0 1.38 125.2 2.06 9.47 9.46 3.61
5 8500 4854.6 2495.8 350 12.7 1.10 139.7 2.30 9.22 10.85 4.02
6 11,000 4698.0 2415.3 313 11.3 0.98 128.9 2.12 8.79 10.50 3.71
7 29,000 4854.6 2495.8 272 9.8 0.85 110.4 1.81 8.48 9.32 3.18
8 15,000 4854.6 2495.8 433 15.7 1.36 113.4 1.86 8.57 9.47 3.27
9 9500 4698.0 2415.3 152 5.5 0.48 108.2 1.78 9.06 8.55 3.12
10 4000 4854.6 2495.8 193 7.0 0.61 95.8 1.57 9.45 7.26 2.76
11 500 4698.0 2415.3 317 11.5 1.00 65.2 1.07 9.46 4.93 1.88
12 0 4854.6 2495.8 285 10.3 0.89 57.4 0.94 9.74 4.22 1.65
Sum 87,000 57,159.5 29,386.1 144.7 12.55 1194.5 19.63 92.66 34.40

Appendix B. Preliminary data for emergy synthesis

Table B1
NZEB annual end-use energy (MWh/yr).

Item NZEB (baseline) NZEB (design) BA House (Benchmark)a

Heating 18.82 0.14 9.52

Cooling 1.10 1.83 2.31
Water heating 0.82 0.54 4.10
Lightingb 4.39 4.65 2.64
Interior equipmentc 5.87 7.49 6.48
Fans, pumps, and auxiliary loads 4.45 0.95 0.33
Sum (energy) 35.45 15.60 25.39

Water use (ton/yr) 110.43 57.16 112.78

a 2 2
BA - model NCTH (New Construction Test Home), conditioned area of 3228 ft (299.89 m ) with three stories, so that a correction factor is 0.848.
b
Average designed luminance is 185 lx with an average power density of 9.17 W/m2.
c
Total electronic equipment power is 2186.8 W.

Table B2
Emergy synthesis w/o service (a panel of flat solar collector)a.

Item Area (m2) Volume (m3) Density (kg/m3) Weight (kg) UEV (sej/kg) Ref. Emergy (sej)

Covering (float glass, thick. 3.2 mm) 1.88 0.006016 2579 15.52 1.00E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 1.56E þ 14
Absorber (coated copper plate, thick. 0.2 mm) 1.88 0.000752 8960 6.74 8.61E þ 13 (Odum, 1996) 5.80E þ 14
Tube (D8 mm, 9ea at 100 mm interval)b 2.03 8.61E þ 13 (Odum, 1996) 1.75E þ 14
Heat reflection film (aluminum, thick. 0.1 mm) 1.88 0.000188 2739 0.51 1.61E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 8.29E þ 12
Insulation (glass wool, thick. 45 mm) 1.88 0.0846 29 2.45 3.05E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 7.48E þ 12
Frame and support (aluminum) 8.25 1.61E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 1.33E þ 14

Total 35.50 2.98E þ 13 1.06E þ 15

a 2
Total weight of a panel: 35.5 kg, Total dimension: 2.01 m  1.01 m  0.09 m, Absorber area: 1.965 m  0.955 m ¼ 1.877 m ; UEVs are relative to the global baseline of
12.0E þ 24 sej/yr.
b
Total tube length ¼ 18 m, unit weight ¼ 0.113 kg/m.

Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
16 H. Yi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18

Appendix C. Building emergy analysis of building A (non-

NZEB) (Yi and Braham, 2015)

Table C1
Emergy synthesis of site work and structure (non-NZEB, 12.0E þ 24 sej/yr baseline).

Item Specification Data Unit UEV (sej/unit) Ref. Life (yr) Emergy (sej) Intensity (sej/yr)

Site work
Pavement Stair, concrete (cast-in-situ) 5361 kg 1.83E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 9.82E þ 15 1.26E þ 14
Wall, concrete (cast-in-situ) 2028 kg 1.83E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 3.71E þ 15 4.76E þ 13
Slab, concrete (cast-in-situ) 905 kg 1.83E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 1.66E þ 15 2.12E þ 13
Wood plank, 200 thick. Oak 7142 kg 2.62E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 38 1.87E þ 16 4.92E þ 14
Driveway Cement (thick. 400 ) 13,332 kg 2.94E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 3.92E þ 16 5.03E þ 14
Granular fill (thick. 200 ) 35,553 kg 1.70E þ 12 (Cabezas et al., 2010) 78 6.04E þ 16 7.75E þ 14

Sum w/o service 64.32 ton 1.34E þ 17 1.96E þ 15

w service 2.28E þ 15

Structure
Load-bearing Steel column 560 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 65 2.96E þ 15 4.55E þ 13
Steel beam (ASTM A992) 1374 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 65 7.25E þ 15 1.12E þ 14
Lumber frame (2  4, 1600 O.C.) 724 kg 1.12E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 65 8.11E þ 14 1.25E þ 13
Sheathing (1/200 plywood e OSB) 639 kg 1.54E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 65 9.84E þ 14 1.51E þ 13
Wall (concrete masonry units) 29,564 kg 1.72E þ 12 (Haukoos, 1995) 78 5.09E þ 16 6.52E þ 14
Roof Rafter (2  10, 2400 O.C.) 1794 kg 1.12E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 65 2.01E þ 15 3.09E þ 13
Sheathing (1/200 plywood e OSB) 1416 kg 1.54E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 65 2.18E þ 15 3.36E þ 13
Ground work Granular fill (thick. 400 ) 35,500 kg 1.70E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 6.04E þ 16 7.74E þ 14
Vapor barrier (0.2300 HDPE) 32 kg 6.70E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 2.13E þ 14 2.74E þ 12
Reinforced concrete (cast-in-situ) 44,374 kg 1.83E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 8.12E þ 16 1.04E þ 15
Steel (5.4% of concrete volume) 7824 kg 5.28E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 4.13E þ 16 5.30E þ 14

Sum w/o service 123.80 ton 2.50E þ 17 3.25E þ 15

w service 4.57E þ 15

Note: Top soil loss and natural landscape were not considered.

Table C2
Emergy synthesis of building envelope (non-NZEB, 12.0E þ 24 sej/yr baseline).

Item Specification Data Unit UEV (sej/unit) Ref. Life (yr) Emergy (sej) Intensity (sej/yr)

Floor
Insulation cover Lightweight concrete (thick. 40 mm) 12,897 kg 2.94E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 67 3.79E þ 16 5.66E þ 14
Slab cover Cement mortar (thick. 30 mm) 11,353 kg 2.94E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 67 3.34E þ 16 4.98E þ 14
Insulation 100 Exp. Polystyrene 175 kg 8.75E þ 12 (Meillaud et al., 2005b) 67 1.53E þ 15 2.29E þ 13

Walls
Exterior finish 1 Brick-common 15,444 kg 2.82E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 4.36E þ 16 5.58E þ 14
Vapor barrier HDPE 15 kg 6.70E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 1.02E þ 14 1.31E þ 12
Insulation Batt (R-11), fiberglass 61 kg 3.05E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 67 1.86E þ 14 2.78E þ 12
Board 1/200 Gypsum wall board- 2ply 1867 kg 1.27E þ 12 (Odum, 1996) 52 2.37E þ 15 4.56E þ 13
Interior finish 1 Acrylic paint 23 kg 1.93E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 12 4.52E þ 14 3.76E þ 13
Exterior finish 2 Cement base stucco 5604 kg 2.94E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 50 1.65E þ 16 3.29E þ 14
Binder 0.100 Mortar 481 kg 2.94E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 50 1.41E þ 15 2.83E þ 13
Vapor barrier HDPE 20 kg 6.70E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 50 1.35E þ 14 2.70E þ 12
Insulation 200 Exp. Polystyrene 230 kg 8.75E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 67 2.01E þ 15 3.00E þ 13
Board 1/200 Gypsum wall board- 2ply 2457 kg 1.27E þ 12 (Odum, 1996) 52 3.12E þ 15 6.00E þ 13
Interior finish 2 Acrylic paint 31 kg 1.93E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 12 5.95E þ 14 4.96E þ 13

Roof
Roofing Asphalt shingle 1/400 1895 kg 3.42E þ 12 (Cabezas et al., 2010) 31 6.48E þ 15 2.09E þ 14
Insulation Batt (R-11), fiberglass 34 kg 3.05E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 67 1.05E þ 14 1.56E þ 12
Underlayment 15lb felt paper 193 kg 5.47E þ 12 (Meillaud et al., 2005b) 31 1.06E þ 15 3.41E þ 13

Chimney
Brick-common (6lb/unit) 7505 kg 2.82E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 2.12E þ 16 2.71E þ 14
Binder - mortar (1.17lb/1brick) 1468 kg 2.94E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 78 4.32E þ 15 5.53E þ 13

Windows
Frame Wood 1366 kg 1.12E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 38 1.53E þ 15 4.03E þ 13
Glazing Floating glass 1680 kg 1.00E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 33 1.68E þ 16 5.09E þ 14
Finishing Acrylic paint 34 kg 1.93E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 12 6.58E þ 14 5.48E þ 13

Doors
Frame/Panel Wood 187 kg 1.12E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 31 2.09E þ 14 6.76E þ 12
Glazing Floating glass 51 kg 1.00E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 31 5.11E þ 14 1.65E þ 13
Casing frame Aluminum sash 690 kg 1.61E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 31 1.11E þ 16 3.58E þ 14
Finish Acrylic paint 9 kg 1.93E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 12 1.74E þ 14 1.45E þ 13
Garage door Aluminum 1862 kg 1.61E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 31 3.00E þ 16 9.67E þ 14

Sum w/o service 67.63 ton 2.37E þ 17 4.77E þ 15

w service 6.41E þ 15

Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
 H. Yi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18 17

Table C3
Emergy synthesis of mechanical systems and pipe/duct work (non-NZEB, 12.0E þ 24 sej/yr baseline).

Item Specification Data Unit UEV (sej/unit) Ref. Life (yr) Emergy (sej) Intensity (sej/yr)

Drainage
Rain Gutter A style, 0.0300 Aluminum alloy 47 kg 1.61E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 38 7.62E þ 14 2.01E þ 13
HVAC
Furnace Bryant 355AAV 92 kg 8.52E þ 12 (Odum et al., 1987) 19 7.85E þ 14 4.13E þ 13
Air conditioner Bryant 552A 76 kg 8.52E þ 12 (Odum et al., 1987) 15 6.49E þ 14 4.33E þ 13
Duct system Galvanized steel (supply/return) 673 kg 2.75E þ 12 (Haukoos, 1995) 17 1.85E þ 15 1.09E þ 14
Duct/Pipe Insulation (polystyrene, thick. 15 mm) 90 kg 8.75E þ 12 (Meillaud et al., 2005b) 47 7.88E þ 14 1.68E þ 13

Pipe work and wiring systems

Hot water heater Hot water heater equipment 95 kg 8.52E þ 12 (Odum et al., 1987) 14 8.12E þ 14 5.80E þ 13
Sink 7 kg 5.21E þ 12 (Cabezas et al., 2010) 17 3.78E þ 13 2.22E þ 12
Electric wiring Copper wire 183 kg 8.61E þ 13 (Meillaud et al., 2005b) 67 1.58E þ 16 2.35E þ 14
Plumbing Pipe Carbon Steel (supply) 363 kg 2.75E þ 12 (Haukoos, 1995) 47 9.97E þ 14 2.12E þ 13
PVC (drainage) 119 kg 7.46E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 47 8.89E þ 14 1.89E þ 13

Sum w/o service 1.75 ton 2.33E þ 16 5.66E þ 14

w service 1.20E þ 15

Table C4
Emergy synthesis of interior work (non-NZEB, 12.0E þ 24 sej/yr baseline).

Item Specification Data Unit UEV (sej/unit) Ref. Life (yr) Emergy (sej) Intensity (sej/yr)

Roof/Floors
Roof ceiling Ceiling joist (2  10, 2400 O.C.) 1713 kg 1.12E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 65 1.92E þ 15 2.95E þ 13
5/800 Gypsum wall board- 2ply 2253 kg 1.27E þ 12 (Odum, 1996) 52 2.86E þ 15 5.50E þ 13
Paint 50 kg 1.93E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 11 9.56E þ 14 8.69E þ 13
Floor ceiling Ceiling joist (2  10, 2400 O.C.) 1537 kg 1.12E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 65 1.72E þ 15 2.65E þ 13
5/800 Gypsum wall board- 2ply 2021 kg 1.27E þ 12 (Odum, 1996) 52 2.57E þ 15 4.94E þ 13
Paint 44 kg 1.93E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 11 8.58E þ 14 7.80E þ 13
Floor 7/800 Hardwood flooring 3230 kg 1.12E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 57 3.62E þ 15 6.35E þ 13
Frame truss (2400 ) 1537 kg 1.12E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 65 1.72E þ 15 2.65E þ 13
Ground floor 7/800 Hardwood flooring 3413 kg 1.12E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 57 3.82E þ 15 6.71E þ 13
Stair Wood joist (2  6) 22 kg 1.12E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 65 2.50E þ 13 3.85E þ 11
7/800 Hardwood flooring 81 kg 1.12E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 57 9.09E þ 13 1.59E þ 12
Paint 1 kg 1.93E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 11 2.16E þ 13 1.96E þ 12

Walls/Doors
Walls Stud- lumber frame (2  4, 1600 O.C.) 4166 kg 1.12E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 65 4.67E þ 15 7.18E þ 13
1/200 Gypsum wall board- 2ply 10,740 kg 1.27E þ 12 (Odum, 1996) 52 1.36E þ 16 2.62E þ 14
Paint 269 kg 1.93E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 11 5.20E þ 15 4.73E þ 14
Doors Wood panels and frames 662 kg 1.12E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 31 7.41E þ 14 2.39E þ 13
Finish 13 kg 1.93E þ 13 (Buranakarn, 1998) 12 2.51E þ 14 2.09E þ 13

Fixtures
Bathtub (Porcelain) 35 kg 3.89E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 30 1.38E þ 14 4.59E þ 12
Bathtub (Porcelain on steel) 43 kg 3.89E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 30 1.66E þ 14 5.53E þ 12
Shower base (Terazzo) 68 kg 3.89E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 30 2.65E þ 14 8.82E þ 12
Toilet (TOTO CST764SG) 148 kg 3.89E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 30 5.77E þ 14 1.92E þ 13
Lavatories 64 kg 3.89E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 30 2.47E þ 14 8.23E þ 12
Kitchen Cabinets 428 kg 2.62E þ 12 (Buranakarn, 1998) 35 1.12E þ 15 3.21E þ 13

Electronic appliances, furniture, lighting and housewares

Appliances Laundry machine 100 kg 8.52E þ 12 (Odum et al., 1987) 15 8.50E þ 14 5.67E þ 13
Dryer, Frigidaire 59 kg 5.21E þ 12 (Cabezas et al., 2010) 15 3.05E þ 14 2.03E þ 13
Dishwasher, Frigidaire 36 kg 8.52E þ 12 (Odum et al., 1987) 15 3.05E þ 14 2.03E þ 13
Wall-oven, electric 64 kg 8.52E þ 12 (Odum et al., 1987) 15 5.41E þ 14 3.61E þ 13
Cook-top range, gas 18 kg 8.52E þ 12 (Odum et al., 1987) 15 1.51E þ 14 1.01E þ 13
Refrigerator 126 kg 2.48E þ 13 (Cabezas et al., 2010) 15 3.13E þ 15 2.08E þ 14
Microwave oven 14 kg 2.48E þ 13 (Cabezas et al., 2010) 15 3.37E þ 14 2.25E þ 13
Computer 9 kg 2.48E þ 13 (Cabezas et al., 2010) 7 2.26E þ 14 3.22E þ 13
Lighting Compact fluorescent (14 ea.) 210 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 24 2.92E þ 14 1.22E þ 13
Incandescent (42 ea.) 684 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 24 9.51E þ 14 3.96E þ 13
Other (11 ea.) 308 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 24 4.28E þ 14 1.78E þ 13
Furniture Furnishings 4789 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 24 6.66E þ 15 2.77E þ 14
Misc. Misc. goods 1074 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 24 1.49E þ 15 6.22E þ 13

Sum w/o service 25.92 ton 6.29E þ 16 2.23E þ 15

w service 3.61E þ 15

Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059
18 H. Yi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2017) 1e18

Table C5
Emergy synthesis of construction labor, maintenance, and renewable energy inputs (non-NZEB, 12.0E þ 24 sej/yr baseline).

Item Specification Data Unit UEV (sej/unit) Ref. Emergy (sej) Intensity (sej/yr)

Various goods and services for operation and maintenance

Living supplies Food and apparel 5141 $/yr 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 7.15E þ 15
Maintenance Building structure 259 $/yr 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 3.60E þ 14
HVAC/Water systems 89 $/yr 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 1.24E þ 14
Appliances/Equipment 936 $/yr 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 1.30E þ 15
Furnishings 779 $/yr 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 1.08E þ 15
Disposal systems 10 $/yr 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 1.39E þ 13
Public service Property tax 2548 $/yr 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 3.54E þ 15

Water Public water supplies 300,438 kg/yr 2.38E þ 08 (Buenfil, 2001) 7.15E þ 13

Renewable sources
Solar Transmission to indoor space 6.25E þ 10 J/yr 1 (Odum, 1996) 6.25E þ 10
Sum 6.25E þ 10 J/yr 6.25E þ 10

Construction service (labor and indirect cost) 210,707 $ 1.39E þ 12 (Bastianoni et al., 2009) 2.93E þ 17 5.29E þ 15

Total (manufacturing w/o service) 299.63 ton 7.07E þ 17 1.28E þ 16

Total (manufacturing w/service) 299.63 ton 1.00E þ 18 1.81E þ 16
Total(construction þ operation and maintenance) 606.21 ton 4.25E þ 16

Appendix A. Supplementary data York.

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059.
References
Bastianoni, S., Campbell, D.E., Ridolfi, R., Pulselli, F.M., 2009. The solar transformity
of petroleum fuels, Ecological Modeling. Ecol. Model. 220, 40e50.
Braham, W.W., 2015. Architecture and Systems Ecology: Thermodynamic Principles
of Environmental Building Design, in Three Parts. Routledge, New York.
Brown, M.T., 2005. Areal empower density, unit emergy values, and emformation.
In: The Third Biennial Emergy Conference, pp. 1e16 (Gainesville, FL).
Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 1997. Emergy-based indices and ratios to evaluate sus-
tainability: monitoring economies and technology toward environmentally
sound innovation. Ecol. Eng. 9, 51e69.
Brown, M.T., Raugei, M., Ulgiati, S., 2012. On boundaries and 'investments' in
Emergy Synthesis and LCA: a case study on thermal vs. photovoltaic electricity.
Ecol. Indic. 15, 227e235.
Brown, M.T., Campbell, D.E., Vilbiss, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. The geobiosphere emergy
baseline: a synthesis. Ecol. Model. 339, 92e95.
Buenfil, A.A., 2001. Emergy Evaluation of Water. University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida.
Buranakarn, V., 1998. Evaluation of Recycling and Reuse of Building Materials Using
the Emergy Analysis Method. University of Florida.
Cabezas, H., Campbell, D., Eason, T., Garmestani, A.S., Herberling, M.T., Hopton, M.E.,
Templeton, J., Zanowick, M., 2010. In: Heberling, M.T., Hopton, M.E. (Eds.), San
Luis Basin Sustainability Metrics Project: a Methodology for Evaluating Regional
Sustainability. United States Environmental Projection Agency (US EPA),
pp. 119e136.
Cellura, M., Guarino, F., Longo, S., Mistretta, M., 2014. Energy life-cycle approach in
Net zero energy buildings balance: operation and embodied energy of an Italian
case study. Energy Build. 72, 371e381.
Crawley, D., Pless, S., Torcellini, P., 2009. Getting to net zero. ASHRAE J. 51, 1e8.
Haukoos, D.S., 1995. Sustainable Architecture and its Relationship to Industrial
Building. MS Thesis. Department of Architecture (Gainesville, FL: University of
Florida).
Hyde, R., 2015. From biomimetic design to nearly zero energy building. Archit. Sci.
Rev. 58, 103e105.
Li, L., Lu, H., Tilley, D.R., Ren, H., Shen, W., 2013. The maximum empower principle:
an invisible hand controlling the self-organizing development of forest plan-
tations in south China. Ecol. Indic. 29, 278e292.
Lotka, A.J., 1922. Contribution to the energetics of evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 8,
147e151.
Marszal, A.J., Heiselberg, P., Bourrelle, J.S., Musall, E., Voss, K., Sartori, I.,
Napolitano, A., 2011. Zero Energy Building - a review of definitions and calcu-
lation methodologies. Energy Build. 43, 971e979.
Meillaud, F., Gay, J.-B., Brown, M.T., 2005. Evaluation of a building using the emergy
method. Sol. Energy 79, 204e212.
Meillaud, F., Gay, J.-B., Brown, M.T., 2005. Evaluation of a building using the emergy
method. Sol. Energy 79 (2), 204e212.
Odum, H.T., 1983. Systems Ecology: an Introduction. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New
Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting: EMERGY and Environmental Decision
Making. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York.
Odum, H.T., 2007. Environment, Power and Society for the Twenty-first Century:
the Hierarchy of Energy. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
Odum, H.T., Pinkerton, R.C., 1955. Time's speed regulator: the optimum efficiency
for maximum power output in physical and biological systems. Am. Sci. 43,
331e343.
Odum, H.T., Wang, F.C., Alexander, J.F., Gilliland, M., Miller, M., Sendzimer, J., 1987.
Energy analysis of environmental value. Center for Wetland, University of
Florida.
Odum, H.T., Brown, M.T., Brandt-Williams, S., 2000. Folio #1: Introduction and
Global Budget. In Handbook of Emergy Evaluation, a Compendium of Data for
Emergy Computation Issued in a Series of Folios. Center for Environmental
Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, p. 16.
Peacock, K., 1999. Staying out of the lifeboat: sustainability, culture, and the ther-
modynamics of symbiosis. Ecosyst. health 5, 91e103.
Pless, S., Torcellini, P., 2010. Net-zero Energy Buildings: a Classification System
Based on Renewable Energy Supply Options. National Renewable Energy Lab-
oratory, Golden, CO.
Pulselli, R.M., Simoncini, E., Pulselli, F.M., Bastianoni, S., 2007. Emergy analysis of
building manufacturing, maintenance and use: Em-building indices to evaluate
housing sustainability. Energy Build. 39, 620e628.
Raugei, M., Bargigli, S., Ulgiati, S., 2006. Technological improvement and innovation
in photovoltaics-new emergy calculations. In: Paper Presented at: the Fourth
Biennial Emergy Conference (Gainesville, Florida).
Rothrock, H., 2014. Sustainable housing: emergy evaluation of an off-grid residence.
Energy Build. 85, 287e292.
Rustagi, N., Tilley, D.R., Schramski, J., 2008. Total energy requirements of a living
extensive green roof. In: Paper Presented at: the Fifth Biennial Emergy Con-
ference (Gainesville, Florida).
Siniavskaia, N., 2008. Spending Patterns of Home Buyers. HousingEconomics.com.
Srinivasan, R.S., Braham, W.W., Campbell, D.E., Curcija, C.D., 2012. Re(De)fining net
zero energy: renewable emergy balance in environmental building design.
Build. Environ. 47, 300e315.
Tilley, D.R., 2004. Howard T. Odum's contribution to the laws of energy. Ecol. Model.
178, 121e125.
Ulanowicz, R.E., 1986. Growth and Development : Ecosystems Phenomenology.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Ulgiati, S., 1999. Energy, Emergy and Embodied Exergy: Diverging or Converging
Approaches? Paper Presented at: the First Biennial Emergy Analysis Research
Conference. The Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gain-
esville, Florida.
WCED, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, New York.
Wilson, E., Engebrecht Metzger, C., Horowitz, S., Hendron, R., 2014. In: 2014 Building
America House Simulation Protocols, U.S.D.O. Energy. National Renewable En-
ergy Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
Yi, H., Braham, W.W., 2015. Uncertainty characterization of building emergy anal-
ysis (bema). Build. Environ. 92, 538e558.
Yi, H., Srinivasan, R.S., Braham, W.W., 2015. An integrated energy-emergy approach
to building form optimization: use of EnergyPlus, emergy analysis and taguchi-
regression method. Build. Environ. 84, 89e104.

Please cite this article in press as: Yi, H., et al., An ecological understanding of net-zero energy building: Evaluation of sustainability based on
emergy theory, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.059