Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42112254›Full record

ArticleJournal of industrial ecology2026

Actions to decarbonize English schools: a whole life carbon stock assessment.

Danielle Abbey, Hadi Arbabi, Danielle Densley Tingley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of industrial ecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Danielle AbbeySchool of Mechanical, Aerospace, & Civil Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield , UK.
Hadi ArbabiSchool of Mechanical, Aerospace, & Civil Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield , UK.
Danielle Densley TingleySchool of Mechanical, Aerospace, & Civil Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield , UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper we develop a whole life carbon stock model to assess the impacts of retrofit in cool-temperate climates. The developed model can explore different retrofit deployment rates to limit emissions of the existing building stock, and be used to develop different pathways which could meet carbon budgets for varying future scenarios. We illustrate the application of the model to the English school stock, comprising approximately 20,000 schools. In applying the model, we find that an estimated school carbon budget is only met with a significant increase in retrofit rates from current ambitions, alongside significant decarbonization in electricity and material sectors. When retrofit modeling is applied at scale, the aggregated impacts of material consumption are highlighted, and the most stringent carbon budget cannot be met when a whole life carbon approach is taken. Heat pumps and active ventilation systems pose a significant carbon hot-spot due to the use of carbon-intensive materials and regular replacement rates. These systems would therefore benefit from research and development to reduce their impacts. The developed model also allows for a stock level comparison of retrofit to the alternative of demolition and new construction (to different future standards). We show that retrofit provides the lowest whole life carbon solution over the 25 year study period for all buildings, compared to proposed ambitious UK whole life carbon targets. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44498-026-00027-x.

Indexed as

Building materialCarbon budgetDecarbonisationIndustrial ecologyPathwaysRetrofitWhole life carbon

Identifiers

PMID42112254
PMCPMC13152907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.