Comparison Regarding the Carbon Footprint of Various Sustainable Seismic Consolidation Solutions for Romanian Orthodox Churches

Mihai Gosta, Mihai Fofiu () and Imola Kirizsan
Additional contact information
Mihai Gosta: Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Politehnica University Timisoara, Traian Lalescu 2/A, 300223 Timisoara, Romania
Mihai Fofiu: Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Politehnica University Timisoara, Traian Lalescu 2/A, 300223 Timisoara, Romania
Imola Kirizsan: Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Str. Observatorului 34-36, 400500 Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Sustainability, 2024, vol. 16, issue 10, 1-14

Abstract: In Romania, there are numerous Orthodox churches, many of which are historical monuments of great cultural value that have suffered multiple degradations over time due to various natural or man-made reasons. In a context that is currently increasingly focused on environmental protection, we aim to analyse the carbon footprint of several different consolidation proposals to an Orthodox church with structural deteriorations (and more) and the equivalent impact if a similar building were erected with new materials. The research is proposed to be a stepping stone for determining the sustainability of interventions for orthodox churches, as the existing literature is scarce when it comes to the emissions of these churches and there is no norm to prevent unsustainable interventions. The Orthodox Church “Sfintii Voievozi”, the subject of the analysis, is in the city of Tg. Jiu, Gorj County. The construction was documented to be between 1748 and 1764 and is a historical monument listed in the LMI GJ-II-m-A-09189 registry. The architectural solutions for the church and the structural elements that comprise the load-bearing system are presented. A detailed investigation was conducted to determine structural and non-structural degradations, specifying the main causes that have produced them. With regard to consolidation solutions, two options are presented and compared in this paper: Alternative I—minimal intervention and Alternative II—maximal intervention, both of which are reversible. The carbon footprint calculation was carried out for both options, determining the associated material consumption, and compared to the carbon footprint for the case of a new construction. In conclusion, the consolidation methods with a minimal degree of intervention is recommended as the “most environmentally friendly”, considering carbon emissions when comparing the options.

Keywords: carbon footprint; retrofitting; historic buildings; churches; sustainable interventions; case study (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/3979/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/3979/ (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:16:y:2024:i:10:p:3979-:d:1391471

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 ().