Carbon Footprint of Dwelling Construction in Romania and Spain. A Comparative Analysis with the OERCO2 Tool

CO2 emissions due to the construction sector represent 40% of the total, either directly by the use of the building or indirectly by the emissions incorporated in construction materials and products. It is important to achieve a change in this sector to introduce these concepts in a simple way. Ther...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: González-Vallejo, Patricia, Muntean, Radu, Solís-Guzmán, Jaime, Marrero Meléndez, Madelyn
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2020
País:España
Institución:Universidad de Sevilla (US)
Repositorio:idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
OAI Identifier:oai:idus.us.es:11441/100910
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/11441/100910
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176745
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:carbon footprint
assessment tool
dwelling construction
cost control
id ES_cd382b8ea1431634d2ac65cc65c4ca02
oai_identifier_str oai:idus.us.es:11441/100910
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Carbon Footprint of Dwelling Construction in Romania and Spain. A Comparative Analysis with the OERCO2 ToolGonzález-Vallejo, PatriciaMuntean, RaduSolís-Guzmán, JaimeMarrero Meléndez, Madelyncarbon footprintassessment tooldwelling constructioncost controlCO2 emissions due to the construction sector represent 40% of the total, either directly by the use of the building or indirectly by the emissions incorporated in construction materials and products. It is important to achieve a change in this sector to introduce these concepts in a simple way. There are various tools for evaluating emissions in construction projects. In the present work, the OERCO2 tool is used. This work studies housing projects in two European countries belonging to significantly different regions, Spain (Andalusia) and Romania (Bucharest and Transylvania). Although concrete or masonry structures are mainly used in Romania, due to an increased demand for residential buildings in recent years, a new niche has appeared in the construction sector: metallic and mixed (metal–concrete) structures for multi-storied buildings. For these reasons, a comparison between concrete and metallic buildings can be made in order to highlight their environmental impact. Twenty-four projects are selected from Romanian projects with metallic structures, and Spanish projects with concrete structures. They are also differentiated according to the type of foundation used. As expected, buildings with a metallic structure have more economic and environmental impact than reinforced concrete. The materials with greater impact are metal, concrete, cement, and ceramic products. The potential of the tool for the evaluation of various construction solutions, materials, and project phases is demonstrated.Construcciones Arquitectónicas II2020info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/11441/100910https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176745reponame:idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevillainstname:Universidad de Sevilla (US)Inglésinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:idus.us.es:11441/1009102026-06-17T12:51:07Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Carbon Footprint of Dwelling Construction in Romania and Spain. A Comparative Analysis with the OERCO2 Tool
title Carbon Footprint of Dwelling Construction in Romania and Spain. A Comparative Analysis with the OERCO2 Tool
spellingShingle Carbon Footprint of Dwelling Construction in Romania and Spain. A Comparative Analysis with the OERCO2 Tool
González-Vallejo, Patricia
carbon footprint
assessment tool
dwelling construction
cost control
title_short Carbon Footprint of Dwelling Construction in Romania and Spain. A Comparative Analysis with the OERCO2 Tool
title_full Carbon Footprint of Dwelling Construction in Romania and Spain. A Comparative Analysis with the OERCO2 Tool
title_fullStr Carbon Footprint of Dwelling Construction in Romania and Spain. A Comparative Analysis with the OERCO2 Tool
title_full_unstemmed Carbon Footprint of Dwelling Construction in Romania and Spain. A Comparative Analysis with the OERCO2 Tool
title_sort Carbon Footprint of Dwelling Construction in Romania and Spain. A Comparative Analysis with the OERCO2 Tool
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv González-Vallejo, Patricia
Muntean, Radu
Solís-Guzmán, Jaime
Marrero Meléndez, Madelyn
author González-Vallejo, Patricia
author_facet González-Vallejo, Patricia
Muntean, Radu
Solís-Guzmán, Jaime
Marrero Meléndez, Madelyn
author_role author
author2 Muntean, Radu
Solís-Guzmán, Jaime
Marrero Meléndez, Madelyn
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Construcciones Arquitectónicas II
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv carbon footprint
assessment tool
dwelling construction
cost control
topic carbon footprint
assessment tool
dwelling construction
cost control
description CO2 emissions due to the construction sector represent 40% of the total, either directly by the use of the building or indirectly by the emissions incorporated in construction materials and products. It is important to achieve a change in this sector to introduce these concepts in a simple way. There are various tools for evaluating emissions in construction projects. In the present work, the OERCO2 tool is used. This work studies housing projects in two European countries belonging to significantly different regions, Spain (Andalusia) and Romania (Bucharest and Transylvania). Although concrete or masonry structures are mainly used in Romania, due to an increased demand for residential buildings in recent years, a new niche has appeared in the construction sector: metallic and mixed (metal–concrete) structures for multi-storied buildings. For these reasons, a comparison between concrete and metallic buildings can be made in order to highlight their environmental impact. Twenty-four projects are selected from Romanian projects with metallic structures, and Spanish projects with concrete structures. They are also differentiated according to the type of foundation used. As expected, buildings with a metallic structure have more economic and environmental impact than reinforced concrete. The materials with greater impact are metal, concrete, cement, and ceramic products. The potential of the tool for the evaluation of various construction solutions, materials, and project phases is demonstrated.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/11441/100910
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176745
url https://hdl.handle.net/11441/100910
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176745
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
instname:Universidad de Sevilla (US)
instname_str Universidad de Sevilla (US)
reponame_str idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
collection idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869419790221705216
score 15,301603

Similares en LA Referencia