Environmental and Economic Performance of 3D Printing in Construction: Life Cycle Evidence, Costs, and System Boundaries

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has had a strong impact on many industries, including the biomedical and automotive industries and, more recently, the construction industry. Achieving the 2050 carbon neutrality targets calls for change, especially in the most energy-intensive production sectors. This study has three objectives: to identify global trends in 3D-printed construction related to LCA and LCC; to compare the economic and environmental performance of 3D-printed construction with conventional methods; and to examine the applied system boundaries and existing methodological gaps. This study conducted a comprehensive review of these documents to compare the LCA of 3D printing and alternative methods, evaluate LCA and cost findings, and examine life-cycle system boundaries. We noted a substantial rise in interest since 2021 alongside advances in additive manufacturing. The comparative evidence was highly heterogeneous, and the reported GWP differences could not be pooled or interpreted as a common effect size. Within-study outcomes varied according to the functional unit, system boundary, reference lifetime, material formulation, structural application, geographical context, and comparison baseline. In some studies, changing the functional unit or comparator altered and occasionally reversed the apparent environmental advantage. Lower impacts were reported in particular scenarios combining 3D printing with low-carbon binders, material-efficient geometries, or recycled and earth-based materials. Accordingly, construction 3D printing shows conditional sustainability potential rather than an inherent or uniformly demonstrated environmental advantage. However, the impacts vary strongly according to the assumptions of the researchers. Wall thickness, mix design, machine type, and the definition of functional units can fundamentally shift conclusions. Overall, the evidence shows sustainability potential for 3D printing, while critical barriers remain in methodology selection and incomplete system-level evaluation.