208
A. Campioli et al.
In particular, an integrated management system of the two-way relationships
between user/building, operator/building, and operator/user was introduced to monitor the performance of the building and living behavior. This was carried out through
the sensorized building and typological system, integrated through a suitable software
platform. Moreover, living devices are directly linked to each individual user, to their
preferences and behavior, which group together short-term functions and technologies that can be implemented during each maintenance/replacement/regeneration
intervention with components with a lower environmental impact, thus gradually
improving the overall performance of the whole building system (building system as
a dynamic reality) during its life cycle. The monitoring system (defined to involve
indoor areas, open spaces, and ways of use) is an integral part of the environmental
protocol and cannot be eliminated in either the project or during use, as it is also
used to define the economic agreements between a property and its housing services
manager, and can also be used to control and optimize management costs.
Furthermore, a complete integration between nature-based solutions (NBS) (tree
planting, bioswales, rain gardens, green roofs, and green walls) and technical and
construction solutions was decided in order to pursue project goals.
3 Life-Cycle Assessment to Support Design Choices
To achieve the objective required by the call for a zero carbon settlement throughout
the entire life cycle, in the different phases of the decisional process the design choices
were subjected to verification of the carbon footprint, using the LCA methodology
(EN 15978:2011).
In the preliminary phase, the research group indicated to the design team on which
elements it was important to focus attention, in view of achieving such an ambitious
result. The elements that have the greatest role on environmental impacts are the
supporting structure of the building (for the huge amount of material used) and the
energy aspects (consumption and type of energy carriers used). Hence, the choice
of materials for the building’s supporting structure and the control of energy aspects
(design strategies aimed at reducing consumption, through the use of a high thermal
performance envelope, and the installation of systems for energy production from
renewable sources) were considered as priorities. With the attention being focused
only on the carbon footprint indicator, therefore of CO 2 equivalent emissions, the
only way to compensate for the impacts of materials production and building construction is to use wood (or resources of the renewable plant supply chain), which
allow to also include carbon absorption during plant growth into the carbon footprint balance. Several studies demonstrated the GHG emissions reduction achieved
by timber structure in buildings (Fouquet et al. 2015; Skullestad et al. 2016). The
storage of carbon in the wood can be considered in the balance as an advantage only
if it is assumed that at the end of the building’s service life the wood is not burnt
(waste-to-energy), releasing the CO 2 absorbed during growth back into the atmosphere, but is reused (if still intact) or recycled. Considering that the current chain of
A. Campioli et al.
In particular, an integrated management system of the two-way relationships
between user/building, operator/building, and operator/user was introduced to monitor the performance of the building and living behavior. This was carried out through
the sensorized building and typological system, integrated through a suitable software
platform. Moreover, living devices are directly linked to each individual user, to their
preferences and behavior, which group together short-term functions and technologies that can be implemented during each maintenance/replacement/regeneration
intervention with components with a lower environmental impact, thus gradually
improving the overall performance of the whole building system (building system as
a dynamic reality) during its life cycle. The monitoring system (defined to involve
indoor areas, open spaces, and ways of use) is an integral part of the environmental
protocol and cannot be eliminated in either the project or during use, as it is also
used to define the economic agreements between a property and its housing services
manager, and can also be used to control and optimize management costs.
Furthermore, a complete integration between nature-based solutions (NBS) (tree
planting, bioswales, rain gardens, green roofs, and green walls) and technical and
construction solutions was decided in order to pursue project goals.
3 Life-Cycle Assessment to Support Design Choices
To achieve the objective required by the call for a zero carbon settlement throughout
the entire life cycle, in the different phases of the decisional process the design choices
were subjected to verification of the carbon footprint, using the LCA methodology
(EN 15978:2011).
In the preliminary phase, the research group indicated to the design team on which
elements it was important to focus attention, in view of achieving such an ambitious
result. The elements that have the greatest role on environmental impacts are the
supporting structure of the building (for the huge amount of material used) and the
energy aspects (consumption and type of energy carriers used). Hence, the choice
of materials for the building’s supporting structure and the control of energy aspects
(design strategies aimed at reducing consumption, through the use of a high thermal
performance envelope, and the installation of systems for energy production from
renewable sources) were considered as priorities. With the attention being focused
only on the carbon footprint indicator, therefore of CO 2 equivalent emissions, the
only way to compensate for the impacts of materials production and building construction is to use wood (or resources of the renewable plant supply chain), which
allow to also include carbon absorption during plant growth into the carbon footprint balance. Several studies demonstrated the GHG emissions reduction achieved
by timber structure in buildings (Fouquet et al. 2015; Skullestad et al. 2016). The
storage of carbon in the wood can be considered in the balance as an advantage only
if it is assumed that at the end of the building’s service life the wood is not burnt
(waste-to-energy), releasing the CO 2 absorbed during growth back into the atmosphere, but is reused (if still intact) or recycled. Considering that the current chain of