A state-of-the-art review of the life cycle assessment of rammed earth building construction

• A systematic, critical review of 132 studies reveals profound methodological fragmentation in RE LCA. • Cement stabilization creates a critical paradox, boosting structural performance but increasing embodied carbon by over 50%. • Truncated “cradle-to-gate” assessments are prevalent and overlook RE’s operational energy savings from thermal mass. • Significant gaps are identified in Life Cycle Costing and Social LCA, despite their importance for holistic decision-making. • A standardized “cradle-to-grave” framework integrated with dynamic energy simulation is proposed as an essential path forward. • Future research must prioritize low-carbon stabilizers, regionalized data, and digital tools to reduce uncertainty. The building sector plays a pivotal role in global decarbonization efforts, prompting renewed interest in rammed earth (RE) construction owing to its potential for low embodied carbon through the utilization of natural, local materials. However, the environmental advantages of RE are complicated by contemporary stabilization practices and a lack of comprehensive sustainability assessment. This study conducts a systematic review of 132 research articles on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of RE, with a detailed methodological analysis of 35 core studies. The review identifies a critical lack of standardization in LCA practices, with significant variations in system boundaries and inventory data. A key finding is the fundamental stabilization trade-off: while unstabilized RE offers low embodied energy, the addition of cement can increase the embodied carbon by more than 50%. Furthermore, the potential operational energy savings from RE’s high thermal mass of RE are frequently overlooked. The analysis also revealed significant gaps beyond the environmental LCA. The application of Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is sparse; however, it identifies a core trade-off between low material costs for unstabilized RE and potential savings from reduced labor and maintenance in prefabricated or stabilized systems. The positive social dimensions of RE, such as job creation and cultural preservation, are consistently cited but rarely quantified through Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). To address these gaps, this review proposes the “Carbon Cost Efficiency” metric and a qualitative social indicator framework. The field is currently too fragmented to provide definitive guidance. This review calls for a standardized, integrated Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) framework that enforces “cradle-to-grave” boundaries, integrates dynamic energy simulation, and combines environmental LCA, LCC, and S-LCA. This is essential for the full validation and responsible integration of RE into modern sustainable construction.