Life cycle assessment as a decision-making tool for selecting building systems in heritage intervention: Case study of Roman Theatre in Itálica, Spain
Introduction
The increase in the world population and depletion of natural resources are currently high priority issues (Yeheyis et al., 2012, Wackernagel and Rees, 2014, Karami et al., 2015), with the construction industry considered as the worst offender in resource consumption and waste production (Gervásio et al., 2014). This industry is responsible for 40.0% of global energy consumption, 12.0% of global drinking water use and 40.0% of solid waste generation in developed countries (Agustí-Juan and Habert, 2017, Soust-Verdaguer et al., 2017), as well as 33.0% of CO2 emissions (Gundes, 2016, Zhuguo, 2006). Owing to the pressing need for adopting measures to improve built environment sustainability, sustainable development is recognised as one of the best potential strategies for environmental impact reduction (Brockhaus et al., 2017, UNE-EN 15978, 2012). Various tools can be used in the implementation of sustainable development within the building industry (Soust-Verdaguer et al., 2017). Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been established as a decision-making support tool for evaluating environmental loads based on the building life cycle (Gundes, 2016, Anand and Amor, 2017) and its methodology is defined in ISO 14040:2006 (UNE-EN ISO 14040 2006), ISO 14044:2006 (UNE-EN ISO 14044 2006), and UNE EN 15978 (UNE-EN 15978 2012).
Over the past 20 years, LCA, which is of increasing importance in the scientific community and building industry, has been used to quantify and reduce the potential environmental impact of products and elements (Eleftheriadis et al., 2017, Vilches et al., 2016). Cabeza et al. (2014) reviewed the use of LCA in the building sector in the literature. Many studies on building materials or elements focusing on LCA (Sierra-Pérez et al., 2016, Liu et al., 2016, Ingrao et al., 2016, Fernádez-García et al., 2016, Guardigli et al., 2011) have carried out comparisons of the environmental impact produced. Moreover, despite the complexity of the analysis, numerous studies have been based on the evaluation of the environmental impact of complete buildings (Motuziene et al., 2016, Kylili et al., 2017, Karami et al., 2015, Atmaca and Atmaca, 2015, Asdrubali et al., 2013). However, few studies have focused on LCA and building systems in heritage sites.
Selecting the most suitable building system should be the primary concern (Pineda et al., 2017) when heritage intervention is required. Although the preservation of cultural heritage sites is a priority, reduction of the environmental impact of the building system must also be considered during the early design stages. Certain studies have demonstrated that approximately 20.0% of the global environmental impact is related to the manufacture, construction, demolition and end use of building materials in conventional buildings, where the operational stage has higher impacts. In heritage buildings, these phases could represent an even higher percentage compared to the overall impact. Given the direct influence of architects in selecting the materials, construction systems and construction processes used (Galán-Marín et al., 2015), their decision-making may be crucial in reducing the environmental impact.
According to different studies (Gómez de Cózar, 2001, Gómez de Cózar, 2006, Gómez de Cózar et al., 2006, Gómez de Cózar et al., 2008, Gómez de Cózar and Ariza López, 2014) various strategies and factors should be taken into account during the design stage: (i) parameterisation-simulation-optimisation, (ii) light weight, (iii) industrialised processes, (iv) quick assembly, (v) quick disassembly, (vi) reversibility and (vii) reuse/recycling. These design strategies, particularly reversibility (International Council on Monuments and Sites, 2003), are essential to proper heritage intervention.
Building systems designed according to the above strategies are the most suitable for heritage site interventions. Recent interventions in heritage have, at times, added lightweight covering to archaeological sites. The most appropriate designed solutions have taken into account several design strategies mentioned above, such as light weight, industrialised processes and reversibility (Martínez Díaz, 2005). A study by Ordóñez (Ordóñez Martín, 2011) focused on an extensive review of the organisation of building models relating to heritage intervention in Spain.
Taking these design strategies into account, the building systems proposed in this paper follow the same principles as ecodesign (Lindahl, 2003). Furthermore, an optimised, lightweight, industrialised, reversible and reusable building system that can be assembled and disassembled quickly reduces costs and energy consumption (Wadel and Cuchí, 2010).
The selected case study is that of the protected heritage setting of the Roman Theatre in Itálica (Santiponce, Seville, Spain). The theatre events hosted biannually require the addition of a reversible construction that can provide adequate support for the lighting and electroacoustic stage equipment.
This study aims to develop a LCA method to assess the environmental impact, aiding decision-making during the project stage in protected heritage environments. To this end, three options for optimised, lightweight, quick assembly/disassembly, reversible and reusable systems are proposed. Considering that no minimum impact reference values exist (Rasmussen et al., 2013), option 1 (a widely used standard system) is taken as reference to establish the minimum impact to be produced by the different tested options.
This paper therefore aims to use LCA to identify the most suitable construction system for the proposed case study.
Section snippets
Methodology
The proposed method applies LCA in order to assess building solutions for intervention in a heritage site case study, merging environmental and design strategy issues. The different phases are as follows:
- -
Case study and building system proposal options. This phase consists of the proposal of a case study based on a heritage site. Three building system options are presented for the necessary intervention in the case study. This phase includes the definition of requirements and demands relating to
Results
The masses of the building systems were analysed (Fig. 7) to establish a direct relationship between the mass and environmental impact of each building system. The mass results relating to the building systems are displayed in kilograms. The total floor area was not taken into account in this study, as it was the same for all options analysed.
The results of the analysis of the mass of each structural system demonstrate that the lightest building is option 1, namely the aluminium structure
Discussion
Despite the growing body of literature, LCA is a relatively new concept in construction decision-making (Cabeza et al., 2014, Pineda et al., 2017). Limited research is available focusing on the use of LCA for the selection of constructive systems in protected heritage interventions. This study presents a methodology for decision-making during the project phase, based on proposing constructive systems (compatible with the heritage environment and the functional problem to be solved) that are
Conclusions
In this paper, LCA has been highlighted as a potential decision-making tool for selecting the most suitable architectural solution to be constructed at a heritage site. This was assessed by means of a comparative LCA study of three building options.
In heritage interventions, several variables should be taken into account apart from environmental impact, in order to select the most suitable construction option. This paper demonstrates that the applied methodology can be used to identify the most
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank architect Santiago Bermejo Oroz for kindly providing the data on the applied case study and building systems, as well as the Provincial Government of Seville Department of Citizenship, Participation and Culture for supporting us for more than five years and promoting architecture based on the integration of heritage.
References (57)
- et al.
Environmental design guidelines for digital fabrication
J. Clean. Prod.
(2017) - et al.
Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: a critical review
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
(2017) A review of structural, thermo-physical, acoustical, and environmental properties of wooden materials for building applications
Build. Environ.
(2017)- et al.
Life cycle analysis in the construction sector: guiding the optimization of conventional Italian buildings
Energy Build.
(2013) - et al.
Life cycle energy (LCEA) and carbon dioxide emissions (LCCO2A) assessment of two residential buildings in Gaziantep, Turkey
Energy Build.
(2015) - et al.
The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and materials in the LCA of low energy buildings
Energy Build.
(2010) Motivations for environmental and social consciousness: reevaluating the sustainability-based view
J. Clean. Prod.
(2017)Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: a review
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
(2014)- et al.
Life cycle energy efficiency in building structures: a review of current developments and future outlooks based on BIM capabilities
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
(2017) - et al.
Embodied energy of conventional load-bearing walls versus natural stabilized earth blocks
Energy Build.
(2015)
A macro-component approach for the assessment of building sustainability in early stages of design
Build. Environ.
Assessing environmental impact of green buildings through LCA methods:Acomparison between reinforced concrete and wood structures in the European context
Proc. Eng.
The use of life cycle techniques in the assessment of sustainability
Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci.
Uncertainty analysis for measuring greenhouse gas emissions in the building construction phase: a case study in China
J. Clean. Prod.
A comparative Life Cycle Assessment of external wall-compositions for cleaner construction solutions in buildings
J. Clean. Prod.
Life cycle performance of modular buildings: a critical review
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
A comparative study of the environmental impact of Swedish residential buildings with vacuum insulation panels
Energy Build.
Whole-building Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a passive house of the sub-tropical climatic zone
Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
Evaluation of the environmental performance of the chilled ceiling system using life cycle assessment (LCA): a case study in Singapore
Build. Environ.
Construction solutions for energy efficient single-family house based on its life cycle multi-criteria analysis: a case study
J. Clean. Prod.
Environmental and structural analysis of cement-based vs. natural material-based grouting mortars. Results from the assessment of strengthening works
Construct. Build. Mater.
Environmental assessment of façade-building systems and thermal insulation materials for different climatic conditions
J. Clean. Prod.
Critical review of bim-based LCA method to buildings
Energy Build.
Simplification in life cycle assessment of single-family houses: a review of recent developments
Build. Environ.
Eco-efficiency analysis of the life cycle of interior partition walls: a comparison of alternative solutions
J. Clean. Prod.
Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods: Data v2.0
Análisis del Ciclo de Vida (ACV) de edificios. Propuesta metodológica para la elaboración de Declaraciones Ambientales de Viviendas en Andalucía
Cited by (19)
Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of partition walls: Innovative prefabricated systems vs conventional construction
2024, Cleaner Environmental SystemsUncertainties in whole-building life cycle assessment: A systematic review
2022, Journal of Building EngineeringWhole-building life-cycle analysis with a new GREET® tool: Embodied greenhouse gas emissions and payback period of a LEED-Certified library
2022, Building and EnvironmentCitation Excerpt :For issues with scope, major problems among the existing whole-building LCA studies include the lack of consistent selection of the building elements to be included in the scope [20] and varying and sometimes unclear system boundaries [3,22,23]. For example, Gómez de Cózar et al. [24] considered only five materials (steel, aluminum, wood, concrete, and paint) in a theater building study, whereas Tulevech et al. [25] was one of the few to include electrical and mechanical components (such as copper wire and chiller) in the assessment of an industrial building. This inconsistency of developing a building's bill of materials (BOM) can result in considerable underestimation and incomparability of environmental footprints when examining energy consumption of buildings.
A comprehensive analysis towards benchmarking of life cycle assessment of buildings based on systematic review
2021, Building and EnvironmentAre design for disassembly principles advantageous for the environment when applied to temporary exhibition installations?
2021, Sustainable Production and ConsumptionCitation Excerpt :Other authors analysed the effect of the design for disassembly strategies for a Danish office building where the concrete structure was designed for subsequent reuse; they verified that the number of component-use cycles and the service life of the studied building and its components can significantly affect the environmental benefits (Eberhardt et al., 2019). Another study (Gomez de Cozar et al., 2019) analysed a Roman theatre heritage site in Spain and demonstrated that environmental impact can be reduced by a combination of geometry, production, assembly/disassembly, and recycling processes. De Almeida and Borsato (2020) proposed a method to quantify the best end-of-life strategies showing that LCA applications, disassembly, and energy-recovery technologies should be used to reduce the environmental burdens.
Optimizing thermal and visual efficiency using parametric configuration of skylights in heritage buildings
2020, Journal of Building EngineeringCitation Excerpt :Both energy and daylight evaluating metrics were usually investigated for new buildings in literature [8–11], with limited efforts in building reuse applications [12] and almost non existing in heritage reuse. Most studies conducting heritage reuse focused on embodied or consumed energy without daylighting applications [13–17]. Throughout the previous years, multiple efforts are done to conserve and retrofit building heritage aiming to enhance their performance and suggest efficient reuse strategies, but few has introduced retrofitting in hot and arid climatic conditions.