34
C. Rivero-Camacho et al.
need for energy consumption in the manufacture of materials makes it appropriate
to work on improving processes, so that they become more efficient not only at the
energy level, but also in terms of water consumption and/or waste generation.
After observing the results obtained, one is in a position to formulate model
proposals to include the assessment of the sustainability of a building project. This
proposal is based on simple and accessible data. Simplicity is provided by the cost
base used, the ACCD and the project budgets, which have served as a vector for
introducing sustainability; accessibility is provided by the fact that the data come
from open-access databases or information sources and can be consulted by anyone,
such as the generic LCA databases; and robustness is provided by the reliability of
the sources, which have been intensively tested in numerous investigations.
This has generated a robust and replicable model that offers results, with a double
economic and environmental aspect. In this way, it is possible to make decisions from
the project phase that will result in the improvement of the “environmental qualification” of the building throughout its useful life, without forgetting the economic
aspect.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank the University of Seville for financing the research
work presented, through a pre-doctoral contract, for the development of own I+D+i.
References
1. Fundación General De La Universidad Complutense De Madrid. Cambio Global España
2020/50 (2010) Sector edificación. Programa Cambio Global España 2020/50 del Centro
Complutense de Estudios e Información Medioambiental. Madrid. España
2. González-Vallejo P, Marrero M, Solís-Guzmán J (2015) The ecological footprint of dwelling
construction in Spain. Ecol Ind 52:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.11.016
3. Weidema BP, Thrane M, Christensen P et al (2008) Carbon footprint: a catalyst for life cycle
assessment? J Ind Ecol 12:3–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00005.x
4. Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Pennington DW, Haes HAU (2000) Midpoints versus endpoints: the
sacrifices and benefits. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:319–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0297
8665
5. European Parliament—Council of the European Union (2003) Integrated product policy.
Development of the environmental life cycle concept, COM, Brussels, Belgium
6. Galli A, Wiedmann T, Ercin E, Knoblauch D, Ewing B, Giljum S (2012) La integración de
la familia de indicadores de huella ecológica, carbono e hídrica: Definición y papel en el
seguimiento de la presión humana sobre el planeta. Ecol Ind 16:100–112
7. Wackernagel M, Rees W (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the
Earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC
8. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A,
Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage
91:1–21
9. Herva M, Franco A, Ferreiro S, Álvarez A, Roca E (2008) Un enfoque para la aplicación de
la huella ecológica como indicador ambiental en el sector textil. J Hazard Mater 156:478–487
10. Borucke M, Moore D, Cranston G, Gracey K, Katsunori I, Larson J, Lazarus E, Morales JC,
Wackernagel M, Galli A (2013) Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: the National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework.
Ecol Ind 24:518–533
C. Rivero-Camacho et al.
need for energy consumption in the manufacture of materials makes it appropriate
to work on improving processes, so that they become more efficient not only at the
energy level, but also in terms of water consumption and/or waste generation.
After observing the results obtained, one is in a position to formulate model
proposals to include the assessment of the sustainability of a building project. This
proposal is based on simple and accessible data. Simplicity is provided by the cost
base used, the ACCD and the project budgets, which have served as a vector for
introducing sustainability; accessibility is provided by the fact that the data come
from open-access databases or information sources and can be consulted by anyone,
such as the generic LCA databases; and robustness is provided by the reliability of
the sources, which have been intensively tested in numerous investigations.
This has generated a robust and replicable model that offers results, with a double
economic and environmental aspect. In this way, it is possible to make decisions from
the project phase that will result in the improvement of the “environmental qualification” of the building throughout its useful life, without forgetting the economic
aspect.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank the University of Seville for financing the research
work presented, through a pre-doctoral contract, for the development of own I+D+i.
References
1. Fundación General De La Universidad Complutense De Madrid. Cambio Global España
2020/50 (2010) Sector edificación. Programa Cambio Global España 2020/50 del Centro
Complutense de Estudios e Información Medioambiental. Madrid. España
2. González-Vallejo P, Marrero M, Solís-Guzmán J (2015) The ecological footprint of dwelling
construction in Spain. Ecol Ind 52:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.11.016
3. Weidema BP, Thrane M, Christensen P et al (2008) Carbon footprint: a catalyst for life cycle
assessment? J Ind Ecol 12:3–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00005.x
4. Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Pennington DW, Haes HAU (2000) Midpoints versus endpoints: the
sacrifices and benefits. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:319–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0297
8665
5. European Parliament—Council of the European Union (2003) Integrated product policy.
Development of the environmental life cycle concept, COM, Brussels, Belgium
6. Galli A, Wiedmann T, Ercin E, Knoblauch D, Ewing B, Giljum S (2012) La integración de
la familia de indicadores de huella ecológica, carbono e hídrica: Definición y papel en el
seguimiento de la presión humana sobre el planeta. Ecol Ind 16:100–112
7. Wackernagel M, Rees W (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the
Earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC
8. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A,
Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage
91:1–21
9. Herva M, Franco A, Ferreiro S, Álvarez A, Roca E (2008) Un enfoque para la aplicación de
la huella ecológica como indicador ambiental en el sector textil. J Hazard Mater 156:478–487
10. Borucke M, Moore D, Cranston G, Gracey K, Katsunori I, Larson J, Lazarus E, Morales JC,
Wackernagel M, Galli A (2013) Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: the National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework.
Ecol Ind 24:518–533