A recent study published in the Journal of Building Engineering takes a close look at the environmental impact of different construction methods in Attawapiskat, a First Nation community in northern Ontario, Canada. With housing shortages and sustainability challenges in remote areas, the research compares the viability of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology with traditional construction approaches.
Study: Assessing the Environmental Impact of Building Houses in Remote Areas: 3D Printing vs. Traditional Construction Techniques. Image Credit: sergey kolesnikov/Shutterstock.com
Background
3D printing, or additive manufacturing, has become an integral part of Industry 4.0. With its design flexibility, diverse material options, and efficient manufacturing processes, 3D concrete printing (3DCP) offers a potential solution for more eco-friendly cement-based construction.
However, 3DCP presents several challenges, particularly in remote areas. Issues such as material feasibility, technical expertise, and equipment reliability must be addressed. To align 3D printing with environmental standards, researchers are exploring various mix designs and construction methods.
Using sustainable materials compatible with 3D printing can help mitigate the environmental impact of cement-based construction. This study examined the ecological effects of different building techniques by integrating 3DCP and traditional methods within a life cycle assessment (LCA) framework.
Methods
The study assessed the environmental impact of constructing a single-family home in Attawapiskat using 3D printing compared to conventional methods. Researchers conducted LCAs for six different scenarios:
- Scenario A: 3D-printed house using fly-ash-based geopolymer concrete with 50 % sawdust replacing sand.
- Scenario B: 3D-printed house using an eco blend (blast furnace slag and fly-ash-based geopolymer concrete) with 50 % sawdust.
- Scenario C & D: Increased sawdust content to 100 % in Scenarios A and B, respectively.
- Scenario E & F: Traditional construction methods—wood frame and concrete structure, respectively.
Relevant LCA data was gathered through literature reviews, Athena software, the Ecoinvent database, and expert consultations. The analysis considered key factors such as structural components, material usage, transportation logistics, and energy consumption. Researchers utilized SimaPro software and the Ecoinvent v3.1 database to assess and compare environmental impacts across multiple categories.
Results and Discussion
The LCA identified key contributors to environmental impact in each scenario. Cement was a major factor in Scenarios A and C, while transportation and sodium silicate had significant impacts in Scenarios B and D. In conventional construction (Scenarios E and F), concrete, transportation, and steel were the primary environmental stressors.
Transportation played a crucial role in pollution, particularly in Scenarios B–F, where it accounted for 27.3 % and 30.69 % of the total impact in Scenarios E and F, respectively—over three times higher than previously reported values. This was largely due to Attawapiskat’s remote location, requiring most building materials to be transported from Ontario, generating substantial CO2 emissions.
To isolate the effect of transportation, researchers conducted a sensitivity analysis excluding transportation-related impacts. This provided a clearer picture of other contributing factors.
Among all scenarios, Scenario F (concrete structure) had the highest overall environmental impact, except in ionizing radiation and agricultural land use. Scenarios B and D, which used sodium silicate, had the greatest impact on ionizing radiation. Scenario E (wood-frame structure) followed the concrete structure in categories such as human toxicity, ozone depletion, metal depletion, photochemical oxidation, and fossil depletion. However, it had the highest impact on agricultural land use due to its reliance on wood.
In contrast, all 3D printing scenarios (A–D) showed lower environmental impacts across most categories, including agricultural land use, ozone depletion, metal depletion, photochemical oxidation, human toxicity, and fossil depletion.
Conclusion
This study provides a detailed assessment of the environmental impact of 3DCP compared to traditional construction methods in a remote setting. Data from the Tecla project was used for 3D printing scenarios, while the Athena Impact Estimator software was applied to conventional construction.
Among the 3D printing methods, the eco blend mix (fly ash and furnace slag as binders) in Scenarios B and D exhibited the lowest environmental impact. Additionally, replacing sand with sawdust helped reduce CO2 emissions.
The findings suggest that 3DCP technology has the potential to support sustainable and efficient construction, particularly in remote locations. However, material consumption and transportation remain significant contributors to environmental impact. Optimizing material selection and refining construction processes will be key to making 3D printing a more sustainable option in the future.
Journal Reference
Arash, M. O. T. A. L. E. B. I., Mohammad Abu Hasan, K. H. O. N. D. O. K. E. R., & Golam, K. A. B. I. R. (2025). Assessing the Environmental Impact of Building Houses in Remote Areas: 3D Printing vs. Traditional Construction Techniques. Journal of Building Engineering, 111968. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobe.2025.111968, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710225002049
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.