Assessment Model of End-of-Life Costs and Waste Quantification in Selective Demolitions: Case Studies of Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings

sustainability Article Assessment Model of End-of-Life Costs and Waste Quantification in Selective Demolitions: Case Studies of Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings Eduardo Vázquez-López 1,*, Federico Garzia 2, Roberta Pernetti 2, Jaime Solís-Guzmán1 and Madelyn Marrero 1 1ArDiTec Research Group, Departament of Architectural Constructions II, Higher Technichal School of Building Engineering, Universidad de Sevilla, 41012 Seville, Spain; [email protected] (J.S.-G.); [email protected] (M.M.) 2Institute of Renewable Energy, EURAC Research, 39100 Bolzano, Italy; [email protected] (F.G.); [email protected] (R.P.) *Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-686-253-770 Received: 7 July 2020; Accepted: 31 July 2020; Published: 3 August 2020   Abstract: Innovative designs, such as those taking place in nearly zero-energy buildings, need to tackle Life Cycle Cost, because reducing the impact of use can carry other collateral and unexpected costs. For example, it is interesting to include the evaluation of end-of-life costs by introducing future activities of selective dismantling and waste management, to also improve the environmental performance of the demotion project. For this purpose, it is necessary to develop methods that relate the process of selective demolition to the waste quantification and the costs derived from its management. In addition, a sensitivity analysis of end-of-life parameters allows different construction types, waste treatment options, and waste management costs to be compared. The assessment of end-of-life costs in the present work is developed by a case-based reasoning. Cost data are obtained from three actual studies which are part of the H2020 CRAVEzero project (Cost Reduction and Market Acceleration for Viable Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings). Results show that end-of-life costs are similar to traditional building typologies. The most influential materials are part of the substructure and structure of the building, such as concrete and steel products. Keywords: selective demolition; waste quantification; nearly zero-energy building; End-of-Life Cost 1. Introduction The study of the life cycle of buildings has generally focused first on the use phase. Studies about hotels’ performance consider that this phase can represent between 70%–80% of the total life cycle energy consumption [ 1 ] and 80–90% of CO 2 emissions [ 2 ]; in the case of residential typology, building operation phase consume between 81–94% of total energy of life cycle and 75–90% of CO 2 emissions [ 3 ]. Once the use phase analysis is delimited, it is then focused on the construction phase. In this stage, studies have been centered on the manufacture of construction products and the building construction itself, which last a relatively short period of time (1–2 years) but cause a very high environmental impact. This is largely due to the intensive use of concrete and steel for the construction of building structures, which represent a very high percentage of the CO 2 emissions generated [ 4 , 5 ]. For instance, Du et al. computed embodied energy to be equal 4.9% of the total life cycle energy of building. This value was due to covering only the initial embodied energy of the building [6]. However, it is also important to evaluate the whole life cycle of buildings, including end-of-life, mainly related to demolition and waste management. Rossell ó -Batle et al. [ 1 ] calculated that around 40–50% of the whole energy of this stage is used to demolish the structure of the building, and to Sustainability 2020,12, 6255; doi:10.3390/su12156255 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020,12, 6255 2 of 18 transport construction and demolition waste (CDW), which is between 16–32%. The authors also asserted that this result is highly dependent on the distance travelled to the disposal or recycling plant. In the European Union, Michailidou et al. [ 7 ] highlighted the data unavailability to perform end-of-life studies. Marrero et al. [ 8 ] analyzed urbanization and demolition phases and concluded that both generate 90% of CDW of whole life cycle; the former is due to earthworks and the latter is due to the elimination of all buildings materials. A building’s end-of-life takes place when it is considered out of service [ 9 ], implies a total demolition, selective or not, and includes all its processes and waste management [ 10 , 11 ]. Most building materials are considered waste in this phase [ 12 ]. As defined in the EN-16627 standard, End-of-Life Cost (EOLC) includes deconstruction/demolition, transport, waste processing for reuse or recycle, and waste disposal [11]. Several studies related to EOLC can be found in the literature. Islam et al. [ 13 ] did a complete review of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost (LCC) on residential buildings. Practical models and systems of LCA and LCC also were analyzed. The main limitation of the case studies was that EOLC was not studied in detail. Dwaikat and Ali [ 14 ] carried out LCC analysis for a sustainable building and how to identify and use LCC variables to perform the assessment, considering a useful life of 60 years. In that case, a deeper study about EOLC was developed. Pelzeter [ 15 ] tried to demonstrate that the optimization of the results obtained with the LCC analysis largely depended on the assumptions that were made during the calculation process of LCC, but in this study, EOLC were not determined. EOLC are important for the construction sector because they can incorporate the concept of life cycle from the design, in order to promote good practices such as reuse and recycling in selective demolition works or on-site separation processes for the proper treatment of CDW. Recent European regulations related to the management of CDW include the concept of circular economy, which focused on the waste hierarchy: Reduce, reuse, and recycle [ 16 ]. Dismantling or selective demolition are therefore promoted [ 17 ], for example, through the Green Public Procurement Program developed by the European Union. Furthermore, the European legislation about public procurement has considered since 2014 that the LCC evaluation is necessary to find the most advantageous economical tender [ 18 ]. In the most important standards, LCC is normally divided into four stages, that is, construction, operation, maintenance, and end-of-life [10], thus allowing, in Net Present Value (NPV) terms, different options of building design to be compared. To determine the EOLC of new building designs, the definition of a quantification method of the materials making up the building is required. Furthermore, its corresponding costs should be known. Other important aspects to incorporate in the assessment of end-of-life cost are the identification of technological and administrative barriers to adequately manage CDW, which is widely studied by the environmental community [ 19 – 21 ]. To analyze the waste generation processes in construction, quantification procedures should be defined. A recent piece of research divides these procedures into six categories, namely site visit, generation rate calculation, lifetime analysis, classification system accumulation (CSA), variables modelling, and others particular methods [22]. The cumulative systems are the most used in the literature [ 23 – 25 ]. In these methods, a construction works classification system is essential; this system is the structure on which the calculations are developed to estimate the costs and quantities of each construction material. These systems offer a rigorous way to quantify waste streams, allowing decision-making to define the most appropriate treatment strategies for each waste stream. They generally combine computer tools with calculation tables. Akinade et al. [ 26 ] studied the environmental evaluation of building design, and described four quantification tools, which include the demolition stage in the analysis, as well as its corresponding cost estimation and material quantification. The first tool was Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) [ 27 ], which allows building products to be individually evaluated. The second tool was One-click LCA, a software that assesses capital costs, LCC, and environmental impacts of 3D Sustainability 2020,12, 6255 3 of 18 models of construction materials and systems [ 28 ]. The third tool was Demolition and Renovation Waste Estimation (DRWE), which is focused on the evaluation of material quantification and waste management options such as reuse, recycle, and disposal [ 29 ]. The fourth one was Integrate Material Profile and Costing Tool (IMPACT), which measures the environmental impact of construction phase and the LCC analysis of buildings [30]. In this paper, EOLC will be calculated using the ISO 15686-5:2008 standard [ 10 ], which is the main source for the building LCC calculation. According to this standard, the LCC of a building is the NPV, which is the sum of the discounted costs and revenue streams during the phases of the selected period of the life cycle. The phases of the life cycle that are included in the calculation are the initial investment cost (design and construction), the cost for operation and maintenance, and the EOLC [ 31 ]. An assessment model is proposed to study the end-of-life phase, including quantification and management of demolition waste. These assessments are needed in economic and environmental analyses. This study will be applied to Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings (NZEB), as part of the H2020 CRAVEzero research project, of which the objective is to identify the additional economic costs of NZEB from the point of view of the complete life cycle, in order to be able to make proposals that minimize these costs. As part of the project, Pernetti et al. have developed a tool that implements a global and structured methodology [ 32 ]. This tool analyzes a set of NZEB case studies, representing the most technologically advanced buildings across Europe. The projects data have been provided by the companies Bouygues, Skanska, Köhler & Meinzer, ATP sustain, and Moretti, which participated as designers, general contractors, or technology providers in the construction processes of buildings. NZEB have the challenge of reducing energy consumption in the stage of use of the life cycle of buildings, the longest and most impacting phase [33,34]. European NZEB are defined as “Very high energy performant buildings with a very low amount of energy required covered to a very significant extent by energy from on-site or nearby renewable sources“ [ 35 ]. In the European Union, each country can established his own energy consumption and emissions requirement, e.g., new single-family house in Madrid (Spain) should not surpass 44.6 kWh/m 2 of primary energy consumption or 10.1 kgCO 2 /m 2 of emissions per year [ 36 ]. Furthermore, each level of energy performance will be joined to cost-optimality solutions to evaluate the building energy performance [ 33 , 37 ]. A NZEB typology will be mandatory in new buildings in the European Union States (EU) by 2021 [ 33 , 38 ]. These improvements achieve an energy demand reduction from non-renewable energy sources [ 34 , 38 ], e.g., in Spain, a NZEB could reduce approximately 75% of energy consumption and emissions [36]. In the early stages of the design, the analysis of the EOLC should allow all costs to be estimated. For this purpose, construction materials, dismantling processes, and waste management should be quantified. In this work, an EOLC assessment is proposed for the CRAVEzero project, which is based on the standard classification system of construction work of the Andalusian Construction Cost Database (ACCD) [ 39 ]. The methodology developed by the ARDITEC research group [ 8 , 12 , 25 ] for the quantification and environmental assessment of CDW is also implemented. However, we can say that there are insufficient studies or information regarding the EOLC. Therefore, one of the objectives of this article is to propose a methodology to estimate the costs and the quantification of waste generated by this phase because the impact from the environmental point of view is crucial; consequently, its analysis is pertinent. In addition, a sensitivity analysis of end-of-life parameters allows for the comparison of different construction types, waste treatment options, and waste management costs. The estimation model is developed by a case-based reasoning and cost data are obtained from three actual studies that are part of the CRAVEzero project. 2. Methodology The proposed model calculates the EOLC through the quantification of demolished materials by using an indirect estimation method per Kim classification [ 40 ]. This method predicts the waste generated by construction work units and accumulation units. The quantification during the project Sustainability 2020,12, 6255 4 of 18 design stage is based on a forecast of the CDW production and is helpful for defining the potential recycling benefit and disposal costs. In Spain, a waste quantification method, included in the category of CSA methods, allows the volumes of waste generated by a building demolition to be known [ 25 , 41 ]. In addition, if this method is combined with a cost classification method of work units, a waste cost estimation is likely to be obtained [ 42 ]. The ACCD is employed in this work for the work unit definition [ 39 ] as it has been successfully used in previous works on waste quantification [43]. EOLC includes costs of demolition (TDC), load (TLC), transport (TTC), and waste (TWC) [9] EOLC =TDC +TLC +TTC +TWC (1) The structure of the EOLC calculation is divided into three groups (Figure 1). The first group is demolition costs (DC), the second group is made up of load (LC), transport (TC), and waste management costs (WC), and the third one is EOLC in terms of NPV. NPV represents the actual value of a future cost, so the project time analysis and economic factors, such as discount rate and inflation, should be considered [ 44 ]. These costs categories are compatible with the indications of the ISO 15686-5 and EN 15643-4 standards [10,45]. Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18 design stage is based on a forecast of the CDW production and is helpful for defining the potential recycling benefit and disposal costs. In Spain, a waste quantification method, included in the category of CSA methods, allows the volumes of waste generated by a building demolition to be known [25,41]. In addition, if this method is combined with a cost classification method of work units, a waste cost estimation is likely to be obtained [42]. The ACCD is employed in this work for the work unit definition [39] as it has been successfully used in previous works on waste quantification [43]. EOLC includes costs of demolition (TDC), load (TLC), transport (TTC), and waste (TWC) [9] EOLC = TDC + TLC + TTC + TWC (1) The structure of the EOLC calculation is divided into three groups (Figure 1). The first group is demolition costs (DC), the second group is made up of load (LC), transport (TC), and waste management costs (WC), and the third one is EOLC in terms of NPV. NPV represents the actual value of a future cost, so the project time analysis and economic factors, such as discount rate and inflation, should be considered [44]. These costs categories are compatible with the indications of the ISO 15686- 5 and EN 15643-4 standards [10,45]. Figure 1. Groups and data flow for the end-of-life cost calculation. 2.1. Demolition Costs The demolition activity is mainly conducted in two ways, massive demolition or dismantling and selective demolition. The former is not considered in this work because it does not meet European policies [35,46] about CDW management due to the mixed waste that it produces. In economic terms, there is no consensus about which demolition (massive or selective) is the best economic option; on the one hand, Dantata et al. indicate that selective demolition can be 17–25% greater than massive demolition costs [47], and on the other hand, some studies consider selective demolition more profitable than massive demolition [12,48,49]. When the demolition method is massive, costs can be calculated by means of the volumetric or area data of the building. However, if a selective demolition takes place, detailed information of the building design should be available. ACCD [39] is employed in this paper for the work unit definition. Its most widespread use is for estimating costs in the construction sector and is mandatory in public works in Andalusia (Spain) [50]. It uses a hierarchical organization for work units, where the highest level is the construction site, followed by categories called chapters, each representing a construction process (for example, demolitions, foundations, installations, waste management, etc.), which then in turn are divided into subchapters. The base of this structure is formed by the Basic Costs, which correspond to elementary resources (materials, machinery, and labor), which are added to form Auxiliary Costs, generally mixtures of materials such as cement mortar. The aggregation of several basic and auxiliary costs Figure 1. Groups and data flow for the end-of-life cost calculation. 2.1. Demolition Costs The demolition activity is mainly conducted in two ways, massive demolition or dismantling and selective demolition. The former is not considered in this work because it does not meet European policies [ 35 , 46 ] about CDW management due to the mixed waste that it produces. In economic terms, there is no consensus about which demolition (massive or selective) is the best economic option; on the one hand, Dantata et al. indicate that selective demolition can be 17–25% greater than massive demolition costs [ 47 ], and on the other hand, some studies consider selective demolition more profitable than massive demolition [ 12 , 48 , 49 ]. When the demolition method is massive, costs can be calculated by means of the volumetric or area data of the building. However, if a selective demolition takes place, detailed information of the building design should be available. ACCD [ 39 ] is employed in this paper for the work unit definition. Its most widespread use is for estimating costs in the construction sector and is mandatory in public works in Andalusia (Spain) [ 50 ]. It uses a hierarchical organization for work units, where the highest level is the construction site, followed by categories called chapters, each representing a construction process (for example, demolitions, foundations, installations, waste management, etc.), which then in turn are divided into subchapters. The base of this structure is formed by the Basic Costs, which correspond to elementary resources (materials, machinery, and labor), which are added to form Auxiliary Costs, generally mixtures of Sustainability 2020,12, 6255 5 of 18 materials such as cement mortar. The aggregation of several basic and auxiliary costs give rise to Simple Costs, which represent the various construction activities or work units. Putting together Simple Costs generates Complex Costs, which represent more complicated work units. In this research, demolition cost is calculated (Figure 2) by assigning Demolition Complex Costs to each building element (BE). The last are parts in which the building ´ s project is divided, and they were used in CRAVEzero project to calculate LCC. Some examples are foundation, facilities, and roofs. Each of them is expressed in a certain unit of measurement: m 2 , kg, m, etc. Thirty-nine new Demolition Complex Costs and thirty-one Simple Costs were defined using ACCD. These costs have been defined to adapt the demolition process to the work units in the case studies, such as wooden structures and renewable energy systems. Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18 give rise to Simple Costs, which represent the various construction activities or work units. Putting together Simple Costs generates Complex Costs, which represent more complicated work units. In this research, demolition cost is calculated (Figure 2) by assigning Demolition Complex Costs to each building element (BE). The last are parts in which the building´s project is divided, and they were used in CRAVEzero project to calculate LCC. Some examples are foundation, facilities, and roofs. Each of them is expressed in a certain unit of measurement: m2, kg, m, etc. Thirty-nine new Demolition Complex Costs and thirty-one Simple Costs were defined using ACCD. These costs have been defined to adapt the demolition process to the work units in the case studies, such as wooden structures and renewable energy systems. Figure 2. Groups and data flow for the end-of-life cost calculation. Figure 2. Groups and data flow for the end-of-life cost calculation. Sustainability 2020,12, 6255 6 of 18 In many cases, the unit of measurement of BE could be different to the one of the corresponding demolition work unit, thereby a unit conversion ratio (CR) is required. The demolition cost of each BE (DCi) is calculated according Equation (2), DCi=Qi×X(CRi,j ×DCj) (2) where DCi=Demolition Cost of BEi, and Qi=Quantity of BEi, expressed in its unit of measurement. CR ij =Unit Conversion Ratio. DC j =Demolition Simple Cost j, expressed in € /unit of measurement. The sum of the DC i that are part of the BE, leads to the total demolition costs (TDC) of the building according to Equation (3), TDC =XDCi(3) Table 1shows the BE, roof, and, the Demolition Complex Cost generated from the Demolition Simple Costs, and how the use of CR is necessary to be able to relate the units of both elements (BE and Demolition Costs). Finally, the cost of the roof with cold attic (DC) is 33.67 €/m2. Table 1. Example of Demolition Complex Cost of building elements (BEs). Description QiumBE Roof with cold attic 1541 m2 Components Height (cm) Gypsum board 1.30 Wood/air 2.80 Plastic foil 0.02 Isolation +Wood frames 60.00 Wood 2.20 Bituminous sheet 3.25 TOTAL height 69.57 Breakdown cost calculation umDCjConcept CRij €/umDCj€/umBE m2Selective demolition wood roof 1.00 m2/m27.46 €/m27.46 €/m2 m2Selective demolition wood frames 1.00 m2/m214.72 €/m214.72 €/m2 m2Selective demolition suspended ceiling 1.00 m2/m22.24 €/m22.24 €/m2 m3Selective demolition isolation panels 0.60 m3/m215.42 €/m29.20 €/m2 TOTAL 33.67 €/m2 2.2. Load, Transport, and Waste Management Costs Load, transport, and management activities represent the conversion of demolished BEs into waste and their treatment cost. Previously to cost calculation, waste should be quantified, and waste management options should be defined. The first part of the calculation process (waste quantification) is performed with the support of the ARDITEC waste volume calculation [25]. For each BE, a volume conversion coefficient (CC i ) is applied to change the unit of measurement of the BE to cubic meter. This ratio indicates how much apparent volume (m 3a ) is contained in a unit of the BE before being demolished. In example (Table 1), a wooden roof has 0.6957 m 3a /m 2 . However, gaps are discounted by measuring the project to obtain a value of 0.6957 − 0.021 =0.6747 m 3a /m 2 . This last figure (0.6747) is what it is defined as CCi. After BE is demolished, its volume is changed and is transported as bulk volume. This conversion is made by a bulk volume ratio (CT i ). Representative CT i values are in parenthesis, for reinforced concrete (1.30), walls-partitions (1.30), tiling (1.20), ceiling (1.35), wood doors (1.15), heaters (1.00), Sustainability 2020,12, 6255 7 of 18 and glass (1.10) [ 8 , 25 ]. The demolished bulk volume (DBV i ) of the BE is defined as the demolished volume generated by each BE of the project according to Equation (4). DBVi=Qi×CCi×CTi(4) In the example of Table 1, DBV wooden roof =1541 × 0.6747 × 1.30 =1351.98 m 3b ; CT i in this case is 1.30. An average value of CTiis stablished for each BE. It is necessary to calculate the total waste of each material that can be generated by each Demolition Complex Cost. Therefore, the next step is to determine the weight of different material components by nature in the BE. The waste nature is defined by using the classification from the European Waste List [ 51 ], included in Chapter 17 Construction and demolition wastes. The codes are 17 01 01 concrete, 17 01 07 ceramic, 17 02 01 wood, 17 02 02 glass, 17 02 03 plastic, 17 03 02 bituminous, 17 04 07 metal, 17 04 11 cable electric, 17 05 04 soil, 17 06 04 isolation, 17 08 02 gypsum-based, 17 09 04 mixed inert, 17 09 04 mixed non-inert, and hazardous materials. Firstly, the percentage of each material in the BE, the material volume percentage (VP ki ), should be determined according to Equation (5), VPki =qki ×(CCk/CCi) (5) where q ki is the quantity of the material included in the BE per unit of BE. It is obtained from the bill of quantities of the project. CC k is a conversion ratio that relates the unit of measurement of the material included in the BE to volume unit (m3). CCicomes from Equation (4). For example (Table 1), the percentage of wood in BE (wooden roof) will be calculated. CC i is calculated before (0.6747 m 3a /m 2 ); CC k =1, since wood is measured in m 3 ; and q ki is obtained from the bill of quantities of wooden roof, in this case 0.039 m 3 /m 2 , VPwood, wooden roof =0.039 ×1/0.6747 =5.78% . A similar analysis is done with the other materials that are part of the BE. Thus, it is possible to determine the quantity of demolished bulk volume for each material (DBV ki ), according to Equation (6), DBVki =DBVi×VPki (6) To determine the demolished weight material (DW ki ), the bulk density (db ki ) is employed according to Equation (7), dbki =dak/CTi(7) where dakis the apparent density. Finally, DWki was calculated according to Equation (8), DWki =DBVki ×dbki (8) In the example (Table 1), the bulk density of wood =0.5 t/m 3 and DW wood, wooden roof =0.0578 × 1351.98 × 0.5 =39.07 t. This process is done with all the materials that make up the BE. In this example, the materials are wood, bituminous, plastic, insulation, and gypsum. This process would be replicated for all BEs in the project. After determining all weights, the treatment option percentage can be indicated for each material. The waste treatment options are chosen by considering the waste treatment hierarchy, reuse (PU k ), recycle (PY k ), and disposal (PD k ) [ 16 ], thus allowing different percentage combinations to be compared. Quantities are obtained (in weight) of reused (DWU k ), recycled (DWY k ), and disposed (DWD k ) waste with the Equations (9), (10), and (11) respectively, DWUk=PUk×XDWki (9) DWYk=PYk×XDWki (10) Sustainability 2020,12, 6255 8 of 18 DWDk=PDk×XDWki (11) After determining all material weights, the costs of load, transport, and waste treatment can be established. The total load cost (TLC) includes in situ transport of waste and being loaded on a truck, according to Equation (12), TLC =LC ×X(DWUk+DWYk+DWDk) (12) The calculation is made by multiplying the unitary load cost (LC) per tonne to the waste weight, after adding the weight of different waste treatment options. The total transport cost (TTC) includes all the costs incurred from the construction to the treatment site. The calculation is made with the Equation (13), TTC =X(TC ×WTDok ×DWok) (13) where TC is the unitary transport cost (TC), WTD ok is the distance between the worksite and the waste treatment site, and DW ok is the total amount of waste and waste treatment option (the options are recycling or disposal). The total waste treatment cost (TWC) includes all the cost related to the waste treatment site, fees, and special taxes included according to Equation (14), TWC =X(WCok ×DWok) (14) which is the summation of each unitary waste treatment cost (WC ok ) per tonne times the total amount of wasted materials for each treatment option DWok (recycling or disposal). 2.3. EOLC The EOLC is calculated through the aggregation of demolition, load, transport, and waste treatment costs (Equation (1)). This cost will be therefore affected by economic factors over time and indicates the investor’s time value of money [44]. The NPV of EOLC is obtained from Equation (15), EOLCNPV =EOLC ×((1 +i)y/(1 +dr)y) (15) where EOLC NPV represents the present worth of an investment, which will take place in the future, so the period of time (y), the value of discount rate (dr), and the inflation rate (i) that the investor considered in the LCC assessment should be known. This equation is used for the LCC assessment in ASTM 917, EN-16627, and ISO 15686-5 [ 10 , 11 , 44 ]. Additionally, if the data cost is not recent, an updated cost factor is also required [10]. 2.4. Cost Normalization To compare the results of EOLC of the case studies and to add into previous costs calculated of NZEBs, a cost normalization should be performed [ 32 ], because these case studies come from different countries in Europe. For this purpose, the European construction cost index is employed [ 52 ] to establish an equivalence value of the EOLC obtained from the ACCD and the CRAVEzero project. It is defined as EOLCNPVn and obtained in Equation (16), (EOLCNPV)n=EOLCNPV/icd (16) EOLC NPV represents the end-of-life cost calculated with ACCD in this research, and icd is the cost index of Spain where the ACCD is defined. 2.5. Sensitivity Analysis The main weak point of an LCC analysis are the assumptions that should be made for the input parameters. The difficult access to data, especially in the case of economic boundary conditions, Sustainability 2020,12, 6255 9 of 18 leads to uncertainty in LCC calculation, thus limiting its application. To determine the most relevant input parameters and to tackle in this way the uncertainty issue, a sensitivity analysis is performed, so decision makers could concentrate on the analysis of the most critical parameters [53]. First, the set of input parameters and their variation range must be selected. On the one hand, a fixed range can be adopted from the technical literature, norms, and the data collection of case studies, i.e., interest rates. On the other hand, if a fixed range is not available, e.g., the price of building features, the baseline value is arbitrary varied, ±10%. One of the simplest screening techniques, the differential sensitivity analysis, is adopted. This method belongs to the class of the one factor at a time methods [ 54 – 56 ]. The impact on the LCC of one parameter at a time is studied, keeping the other parameters set equal to their baseline value. In spite of the influence of inflation rate and discount rate, it is very intense in terms of present worth. This affirmation is widely supported in existing literature [ 13 , 44 , 56 , 57 ]. Thus, we focus the sensitivity analysis on evaluation of parameters related directly with EOL: Recycle percentage (PY k ), Recycle distance (DY k ), Disposal distance (DDk), Unitary recycle cost (CYk), and Unitary disposal cost (CDk). 2.6. LCC CRAVEzero Calculation For the LCC calculation of the other life cycle phases (design, construction, and operation) CRAVEzero methodology [ 32 ] was adopted, which is resumed in this section. The first step for the calculation of the LCC is establishing the time period. Following the framework of the ISO 15686-5:2008 standard, the largest period possible is 100 years [ 10 ] but shorter periods lead to more reliable assessments as time-uncertainties have a smaller impact. For the phases up to the operation phase, a period of 40 years was selected. A common discount rate value for all case studies was adopted to updating future costs over the 40-year life. The selected value was taken from the FRED Economic Database [ 58 ], which provided an average discount rate of 1.51% for the time period going from 2009 (the year of construction of the oldest case study) to 2017 (time period during case studies were built). Average values from 2009–2016 (year of construction of the case studies) of interest rate were used. Interest rate is taken from CRAVEzero project, which is necessary to maintain for further comparison and aggregation. Inflation rate was not considered in this calculation since it affects all results in the same way. In a second step, energy costs related to building operation were obtained from CRAVEzero project. As the official energy bills were not available in most cases, the evaluation was based on the energy demand calculated. In particular, the energy consumption and production was analyzed using the PHPP evaluation tool [ 59 ]. Energy prices derived from Eurostat [ 60 ], considering the average values from 2010 to 2017. The analyzed buildings were built between 2009 and 2016, and there are not enough data for maintenance cost yet. Therefore, the analysis within CRAVEzero of maintenance and use costs was based on the standard values from the literature. In particular, the EN 15459:2017 standard [ 32 , 61 ] provided annual maintenance costs for each item, including operation, repair, and service, as a percentage of the initial construction cost. For passive construction elements, an annual average value, representing 1.5% of the construction cost, was taken for the evaluation, and it was verified with average values derived from the experience of industry partners in the CRAVEzero project. 3. Case Studies Description, Scenario 3.1. Case Studies Description Three buildings with different construction characteristics were chosen for this study (Table 2). Their main difference was their structural material, ranging from concrete, wood, and mixed. Also, they have a high degree of thermal insulation in their envelope, use low-consumption installations, and have their own system of photovoltaic power production. Sustainability 2020,12, 6255 16 of 18 3. Nematchoua, M.K.; Teller, J.; Reiter, S. Statistical life cycle assessment of residential buildings in a temperate climate of northern part of Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,229, 621–631. [CrossRef] 4. Asif, M.; Muneer, T.; Kelley, R. Life cycle assessment: A case study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Build. Environ. 2007,42, 1391–1394. [CrossRef] 5. Dimoudi, A.; Tompa, C. Energy and environmental indicators related to construction of office buildings. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2008,53, 86–95. [CrossRef] 6. Du, P.; Wood, A.; Stephens, B.; Song, X. Life-Cycle Energy Implications of Downtown High-Rise vs. Suburban Low-Rise Living: An Overview and Quantitative Case Study for Chicago. Buildings 2015 ,5, 1003–1024. [CrossRef] 7. Michailidou, A.V.; Vlachokostas, C.; Moussiopoulos, N.; Maleka, D. Life Cycle Thinking used for assessing the environmental impacts of tourism activity for a Greek tourism destination. J. Clean. Prod. 2016 ,111, 499–510. [CrossRef] 8. Marrero, M.; Rivero-Camacho, C.; Alba-Rodr í guez, M.D. What are we discarding during the life cycle of a building? Case studies of social housing in Andalusia, Spain. Waste Manag. 2020,102, 391–403. [CrossRef] 9. EN-15643-1. Sustainability of Construction Works—Sustainability Assessment of Buildings—Part 1: General Framework; Comite Europeen de Normalisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. 10. ISO 15686-5. Buildings and Constructed Assets—Service Life Planning—Part 5: Life-Cycle Costing; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. 11. EN-16627. Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Economic Performance of Buildings—Calculation Methods; Comite Europeen de Normalisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. 12. Alba-Rodr í guez, M.D.; Mart í nez-Rocamora, A.; Gonz á lez-Vallejo, P.; Ferreira-S á nchez, A.; Marrero, M. Building rehabilitation versus demolition and new construction: Economic and environmental assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017,66, 115–126. [CrossRef] 13. Islam, H.; Jollands, M.; Setunge, S. Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost implication of residential buildings—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015,42, 129–140. [CrossRef] 14. Dwaikat, L.N.; Ali, K.N. Green buildings life cycle cost analysis and life cycle budget development: Practical applications. J. Build. Eng. 2018,18, 303–311. [CrossRef] 15. Pelzeter, A. Building optimisation with life cycle costs—The influence of calculation methods. J. Facil. Manag. 2007,5, 115–128. [CrossRef] 16. European Commission. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament on the Implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan COM/2019/190 Final; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. 17. European Commission. EU Construction & Demolition Waste Management Protocol; Dublin, 22 June 2017; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2016; Volume 62, ISBN 1866505041. 18. European Parliament. Directive 2014/24/EU of The European Parliament and of The Council of 26 February 2014 on Public Procurement and Repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (Text with EEA Relevance); European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 2014; Volume 94. 19. Kofoworola, O.F.; Gheewala, S.H. Estimation of construction waste generation and management in Thailand. Waste Manag. 2009,29, 731–738. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 20. Wang, J.; Yuan, H.; Kang, X.; Lu, W. Critical success factors for on-site sorting of construction waste: A china study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010,54, 931–936. [CrossRef] 21. Yuan, H.; Shen, L. Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste management. Waste Manag. 2011,31, 670–679. [CrossRef] 22. Wu, Z.; Yu, A.T.W.; Shen, L.; Liu, G. Quantifying construction and demolition waste: An analytical review. Waste Manag. 2014,34, 1683–1692. [CrossRef] 23. M á lia, M.; De Brito, J.; Pinheiro, M.D.; Bravo, M. Construction and demolition waste indicators. Waste Manag. Res. 2013,31, 241–255. [CrossRef] 24. Coelho, A.; De Brito, J. Generation of construction and demolition waste in Portugal. Waste Manag. Res. 2011,29, 739–750. [CrossRef] 25. Sol í s-Guzm á n, J.; Marrero, M.; Montes-Delgado, M.V.; Ram í rez-de-Arellano, A. A Spanish model for quantification and management of construction waste. Waste Manag. 2009,29, 2542–2548. [CrossRef] 26. Akinade, O.O.; Oyedele, L.O.; Omoteso, K.; Ajayi, S.O.; Bilal, M.; Owolabi, H.A.; Alaka, H.A.; Ayris, L.; Henry Looney, J. BIM-based deconstruction tool: Towards essential functionalities. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2017,6, 260–271. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020,12, 6255 17 of 18 27. NIST BEES Online. Available online: https://ws680.nist.gov/bees/(A(YRWmdd3E1Q\protect\kern+.1667em\ relaxEkAAAAZWE1NmE3MzUtMWM4Zi00OTA1LWI0MTctN2RkODkzOWYyNGMzu9uo8zgO971\ protect\kern+.1667em\relaxrP3Ett3WWtXZwV6A1))/AnalysisParametersBuildingProds.aspx (accessed on 7 July 2020). 28. BIONOVA Ltd. One Click LCA. Available online: https://www.oneclicklca.com/(accessed on 7 July 2020). 29. Cheng, J.C.P.; Ma, L.Y.H. A BIM-based system for demolition and renovation waste estimation and planning. Waste Manag. 2013. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 30. BRE Group. IMPACT. Available online: https://www.bregroup.com/impact/(accessed on 7 July 2020). 31. Garzia, F.; Pernetti, R.; Weiss, T.; Venus, D.; Knotzer, A.; Thouvenot, M.; Berggren, B. D2.1: Report on EU Implementation of nZEBs; EURAC research: Bolzano, Italy, 2018. 32. Pernetti, R.; Garzia, F.; Paoletti, G. D2.2: Spreadsheet with LCCs A Database for Benchmarking Actual NZEB Life-Cycle Costs of the Case Studies; EURAC research: Bolzano, Italy, 2018. 33. European Parliament. Directive 2010/31/EU, of european parliament and of the council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of building (recast). Off. J. Eur. Union 2010,153, 13–35. 34. European Commission. Guidelines accompanying Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January supplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. Off. J. Eur. Union 2012,115, 1–28. 35. European Commission. Commission recommendation (EU) 2016/1318, on guidelines for the promotion of nearly zero-energy buildings and best practices to ensure that, by 2020, all new buildings are nearly zero-energy buildings. Off. J. Eur. Union 2016,208, 46–57. 36. IDAE. Escala de calificaci ó n energ é tica—Edificios de nueva construcci ó n. Labelling schemes for new buildings; IDAE—Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía: Madrid, Spain, 2009. 37. D’Agostino, D.; Mazzarella, L. What is a Nearly zero energy building? Overview, implementation and comparison of definitions. J. Build. Eng. 2019,21, 200–212. [CrossRef] 38. Karlessi, T.; Kampelis, N.; Kolokotsa, D.; Santamouris, M.; Standardi, L.; Isidori, D.; Cristalli, C. The Concept of Smart and NZEB Buildings and the Integrated Design Approach. Proc. Eng. 2017 ,180, 1316–1325. [CrossRef] 39. ACCD—Andalusia Construction Cost Database. 2017. Available online: http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/ organismos/fomentoyvivienda/areas/vivienda-rehabilitacion/planes-instrumentos/paginas/bcca-sept-2017. html (accessed on 7 July 2020). 40. Kim, Y.-C.; Hong, W.-H.; Park, J.-W.; Cha, G.-W. An estimation framework for building information modeling (BIM)-based demolition waste by type. Waste Manag. Res. 2017,35, 1285–1295. [CrossRef] 41. Ramirez de Arellano Agudo, A.; Llatas-Oliver, C.; Garc í a-Torres, I. Retirada Selectiva de Residuos: Modelo de Presupuestacion; Coleccion Nivel 6; Fundacion Cultural del Colegio Oficial de Aparejadores y Arquitectos Tecnicos: Sevilla, Spain, 2002. 42. Marrero, M.; Ramirez-De-Arellano, A. The building cost system in andalusia: Application to construction and demolition waste management. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2010,28, 495–507. [CrossRef] 43. Gonz á lez-Vallejo, P.; Muñoz-Sanguinetti, C.; Marrero, M. Environmental and economic assessment of dwelling construction in Spain and Chile. A comparative analysis of two representative case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,208, 621–635. [CrossRef] 44. ASTM E917. Stardard Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013. 45. EN-15643-4. Sustainability of Construction Works. Assessment of Buildings. Framework for the Assessment of Economic Performance; Comite Europeen de Normalisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. 46. European Parliament. Directive 2008/98/EC, On Waste and Repealing Centain Directives. Off. J. Eur. Union 2008,312, 3–30. 47. Dantata, N.; Touran, A.; Wang, J. An analysis of cost and duration for deconstruction and demolition of residential buildings in Massachusetts. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2005,44, 1–15. [CrossRef] 48. Sol í s-Guzm á n, J.; Marrero, M.; Guisado Garc í a, D. Model for the quantification and budgeting of the construction and demolition waste. Application to roads|Modelo de cuantificaci ó n y presupuestaci ó n en la gestión de residuos de construcción y demolición. Aplicación a viales. Carreteras 2014,4, 6–18. 49. Pun, S.K.; Liu, C.; Langston, C. Case study of demolition costs of residential buildings. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2006,24, 967–976. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020,12, 6255 18 of 18 50. Freire-Guerrero, A.; Alba-Rodr í guez, M.D.; Marrero, M. A budget for the ecological footprint of buildings is possible: A case study using the dwelling construction cost database of Andalusia. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019,51. [CrossRef] 51. European Commission. 2000/532/EC European waste catalogue. Off. J. Eur. Communities 2000,226, 3–24. 52. European Constructions Costsd Ltd. European Cost Index. Available online: http://constructioncosts.eu/ cost-index/(accessed on 7 July 2020). 53. Langdon, D. Life Cycle Costing (LCC) as a contribution to sustainable construction: A common methodology. Literature review. Davis Langdon Manag. Consult. 2007,1, 1–113. 54. Heiselberg, P.; Brohus, H.; Hesselholt, A.; Rasmussen, H.; Seinre, E.; Thomas, S. Application of sensitivity analysis in design of sustainable buildings. Renew. Energy 2009,34, 2030–2036. [CrossRef] 55. Tian, W. A review of sensitivity analysis methods in building energy analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013,20, 411–419. [CrossRef] 56. Weiss, T.; Moser, C.; Venus, D.; Garzia, F.; Pernetti, R.; Köhler, G.; Stöcker, T. D6.1: Parametric Models for Buildings and Building Clusters: Building Features and Boundaries; EURAC research: Bolzano, Italy, 2019. 57. Marenjak, S.; Krsti´c, H. Sensitivity analysis of facilities life cycle costs. Teh. Vjesn. 2010,17, 481–487. 58. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Interest Rates, Discount Rate for Euro Area (INTDSREZQ193N)|FRED|St. Louis Fed. Available online: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INTDSREZQ193N (accessed on 7 July 2020). 59. Feist, W.; Pfluger, R.; Schneieders, J.; Kah, O.; Kaufman, B.; Krick, B. Passive House Planning Package Version 7; Passive House Institute: Darmstadt, Germany, 2012. 60. Eurostat Electricity Prices for Households in the European Union 2010–2017, Semmi-Annually. Available online: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu (accessed on 7 July 2020). 61. EN15459-1:2017. Energy Performance of Buildings—Economic Evaluation Procedure for Energy Systems in Buildings—Part 1: Calculation Procedures, Modules M1-M14; Comite Europeen de Normalisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. 62. SGC. Tarifa de Precios de Reciclaje de Residuos de la Construcción; SGC: Fresno de la Ribera, Spain, 2016. 63. RESIDUALIA. Tarifas—Centro de Gesti ó n Medioambiental Sierra Segura. Available online: http://www. residualia.net/tarifas/(accessed on 8 November 2019). 64. BRE; Deloitte; FCT; ICEDD; RPS; VTT, D.-G. Resource Efficient Use of Mixed Wastes Improving Management of Construction and Demolition Waste; Final report; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. 65. ICE. Demolition Protocol; Institution of Civil Engineeres: London, UK, 2008. 66. Banias, G.; Achillas, C.; Vlachokostas, C.; Moussiopoulos, N.; Papaioannou, I. A web-based Decision Support System for the optimal management of construction and demolition waste. Waste Manag. 2011 ,31, 2497–2502. [CrossRef] © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).