Ecological Footprint of the Life Cycle of Buildings
29
Fig. 11 Analysis of resources consumed and CDW generated (self-made)
equivalent, in quantity, to the materials quantified in the building’s construction phase,
discounting the CDW. In other words, all the materials that were once consumed in
the construction of the building, once demolished are converted into CDW. The
materials that are most represented in the BLC after concrete are aggregates and
stones, followed by brick. In contrast, the least representative materials are glass,
wood and plastic, in order of lowest to highest consumption in the BLC. The 10
main families of materials identified in the results coincide with those identified by
Solís-Guzmán et al. [98] in Spain, in projects in Italy [99], and Chastas [100], Brazil
[101] and Chile [102]. By observing the materials and their associated environmental
impacts, it can be seen how the greatest impacts are not given by the most abundant
materials.
Finally, another option offered by the results presented in Fig. 11 is to analyse
the viability of revaluing CDWs to convert them back into construction materials.
This would meet the demand for resources, while reducing the deposit of CDWs in
landfills, in line with the new legislation on the circular economy.
Figure 12 shows the proportion of the environmental impacts of the indirect
consumption of the project studied. The first thing that stands out is that the environmental impact of the materials is much greater than that of machinery and manpower.
The impact produced by the food derived from the maintenance of the manpower
represents only 1–42% of the total EF; being the rest divided into 20–21% for the
machinery; and the remaining impact 78–37% for the materials. We can see how
manpower, being such a consumed resource, represents the least of the environmental impacts. This is due to the high impact associated with the fuels or electricity
needed to operate the machinery.
The EF indicator is the only one in the footprint family that allows the quantification of the impact associated with human resources. This is thanks to the involvement
of the productive land in the methodology of the same. The productive land provides
29
Fig. 11 Analysis of resources consumed and CDW generated (self-made)
equivalent, in quantity, to the materials quantified in the building’s construction phase,
discounting the CDW. In other words, all the materials that were once consumed in
the construction of the building, once demolished are converted into CDW. The
materials that are most represented in the BLC after concrete are aggregates and
stones, followed by brick. In contrast, the least representative materials are glass,
wood and plastic, in order of lowest to highest consumption in the BLC. The 10
main families of materials identified in the results coincide with those identified by
Solís-Guzmán et al. [98] in Spain, in projects in Italy [99], and Chastas [100], Brazil
[101] and Chile [102]. By observing the materials and their associated environmental
impacts, it can be seen how the greatest impacts are not given by the most abundant
materials.
Finally, another option offered by the results presented in Fig. 11 is to analyse
the viability of revaluing CDWs to convert them back into construction materials.
This would meet the demand for resources, while reducing the deposit of CDWs in
landfills, in line with the new legislation on the circular economy.
Figure 12 shows the proportion of the environmental impacts of the indirect
consumption of the project studied. The first thing that stands out is that the environmental impact of the materials is much greater than that of machinery and manpower.
The impact produced by the food derived from the maintenance of the manpower
represents only 1–42% of the total EF; being the rest divided into 20–21% for the
machinery; and the remaining impact 78–37% for the materials. We can see how
manpower, being such a consumed resource, represents the least of the environmental impacts. This is due to the high impact associated with the fuels or electricity
needed to operate the machinery.
The EF indicator is the only one in the footprint family that allows the quantification of the impact associated with human resources. This is thanks to the involvement
of the productive land in the methodology of the same. The productive land provides