A Model for the Assessment of the Water Footprint …
69
Most recent studies proposing methodologies for estimating the environmental
impact of buildings or the application of ecological indicators to building case studies
have focused on aspects such as LCA [10], life-cycle energy consumption analysis
[61] or life-cycle carbon footprint [71], or a combination thereof [11, 13]. In recent
years, these studies have been incorporated into more powerful computer tools, which
is generating a new field of action for LCA, as is the case with BIM platforms [48].
But the LCA methodology and its derivatives are not always easy to use by the nonspecialist user, nor is it easy to communicate to such users. Therefore, throughout
the development of these indicators, others have been implemented that have a lesser
scope, but are easier to use and interpret by the agents involved in construction.
In Spain, there are a variety of these tools that in some way include the calculation
of the carbon footprint of buildings. In addition to LEED or BREEAM, whose use
has spread in our country, thanks to national bodies such as the Spanish Green
Building Council (SpainGBC 2015) and BREEAM Spain (BREEAM 2017). These
tools include among the various aspects evaluated to obtain a final score of the
CO 2 emissions from the manufacture of building materials and operational energy;
however, that final score does not reflect these CO 2 emissions, so it does not report
each result separately for better understanding and subsequent analysis of possible
improvements.
In the research carried out by Solís-Guzmán (2011), the integration of the Ecological Footprint indicator (EF) in the construction sector is presented, observing the
difficulties and benefits that it can generate in relation to other indicators. To this
end, first, the indicator must be analyzed to be adapted to the residential sector, by
analyzing the construction of buildings, and secondly, a calculation methodology is
developed to quantitatively determine the impacts generated by the industry. This
methodology applies to the resources used (energy, water, labour, building materials,
etc.) and to the waste generated in the construction of residential buildings.
Research has been carried out on the evaluation of the EF indicator of the impact
generated by the construction of the 10 most representative typologies of housing
constructed in Spain, from 2007 to 2010, identified through official statistical reports
[34]. This stage includes the use and maintenance of the building, which is the
longest in time, taking into account, on the one hand, direct consumption of water
and energy, and on the other hand, those actions of maintenance, conservation and
cleaning of the building, necessary to prolong its useful life [49]. A study of the
remodelling, rehabilitation and final phase of the building’s life cycle, [1, 2] and the
HEREVEA project (The Ecological Footprint of Building Recovery: Economic and
Environmental Feasibility) which integrates environmental and economic analysis
to propose, at the level of Andalusia, aspects related to the application of the HE
indicator for decision-making immediately prior to the demolition and end of life of
the building [45]. Rivero-Camacho has faced the challenge of analyzing the complete
life cycle analysis, a work that has not yet been fully published and whose advances
of partial results, referring, for example, to waste [48], arouse interest.
But it is Freire (Antonio Freire [29], who faces the direct environmental costs,
similar to the direct economic costs in the project’s budget, they cause the direct use
of resources in the work through the expenditure of energy of the machinery used in
69
Most recent studies proposing methodologies for estimating the environmental
impact of buildings or the application of ecological indicators to building case studies
have focused on aspects such as LCA [10], life-cycle energy consumption analysis
[61] or life-cycle carbon footprint [71], or a combination thereof [11, 13]. In recent
years, these studies have been incorporated into more powerful computer tools, which
is generating a new field of action for LCA, as is the case with BIM platforms [48].
But the LCA methodology and its derivatives are not always easy to use by the nonspecialist user, nor is it easy to communicate to such users. Therefore, throughout
the development of these indicators, others have been implemented that have a lesser
scope, but are easier to use and interpret by the agents involved in construction.
In Spain, there are a variety of these tools that in some way include the calculation
of the carbon footprint of buildings. In addition to LEED or BREEAM, whose use
has spread in our country, thanks to national bodies such as the Spanish Green
Building Council (SpainGBC 2015) and BREEAM Spain (BREEAM 2017). These
tools include among the various aspects evaluated to obtain a final score of the
CO 2 emissions from the manufacture of building materials and operational energy;
however, that final score does not reflect these CO 2 emissions, so it does not report
each result separately for better understanding and subsequent analysis of possible
improvements.
In the research carried out by Solís-Guzmán (2011), the integration of the Ecological Footprint indicator (EF) in the construction sector is presented, observing the
difficulties and benefits that it can generate in relation to other indicators. To this
end, first, the indicator must be analyzed to be adapted to the residential sector, by
analyzing the construction of buildings, and secondly, a calculation methodology is
developed to quantitatively determine the impacts generated by the industry. This
methodology applies to the resources used (energy, water, labour, building materials,
etc.) and to the waste generated in the construction of residential buildings.
Research has been carried out on the evaluation of the EF indicator of the impact
generated by the construction of the 10 most representative typologies of housing
constructed in Spain, from 2007 to 2010, identified through official statistical reports
[34]. This stage includes the use and maintenance of the building, which is the
longest in time, taking into account, on the one hand, direct consumption of water
and energy, and on the other hand, those actions of maintenance, conservation and
cleaning of the building, necessary to prolong its useful life [49]. A study of the
remodelling, rehabilitation and final phase of the building’s life cycle, [1, 2] and the
HEREVEA project (The Ecological Footprint of Building Recovery: Economic and
Environmental Feasibility) which integrates environmental and economic analysis
to propose, at the level of Andalusia, aspects related to the application of the HE
indicator for decision-making immediately prior to the demolition and end of life of
the building [45]. Rivero-Camacho has faced the challenge of analyzing the complete
life cycle analysis, a work that has not yet been fully published and whose advances
of partial results, referring, for example, to waste [48], arouse interest.
But it is Freire (Antonio Freire [29], who faces the direct environmental costs,
similar to the direct economic costs in the project’s budget, they cause the direct use
of resources in the work through the expenditure of energy of the machinery used in