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

Patricia González-Vallejo, Radu Muntean, Jaime Solís-Guzmán and Madelyn Marrero
Additional contact information
Patricia González-Vallejo: ArDiTec Research Group, Departament of Architectural Constructions II, Higher Technichal School of Building Engineering, Universidad de Sevilla, 41012 Seville, Spain
Radu Muntean: Department of Civil Engineering, Transilvania University of Brasov, 500036 Brașov, Romania
Jaime Solís-Guzmán: ArDiTec Research Group, Departament of Architectural Constructions II, Higher Technichal School of Building Engineering, Universidad de Sevilla, 41012 Seville, Spain
Madelyn Marrero: ArDiTec Research Group, Departament of Architectural Constructions II, Higher Technichal School of Building Engineering, Universidad de Sevilla, 41012 Seville, Spain

Sustainability, 2020, vol. 12, issue 17, 1-22

Abstract: CO 2 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.

Keywords: carbon footprint; assessment tool; dwelling construction; cost control (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/6745/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/6745/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:17:p:6745-:d:401548

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().