Methodology for improving the sustainability of industrial buildings via matrix of combinations water and carbon footprint assessment

Citation: Lopes R. Silva, D.; Rivero-Camacho, C.; Rusu, D.; Marrero, M. Methodology for Improving the Sustainability of Industrial Buildings via Matrix of Combinations Water and Carbon Footprint Assessment. Sustainability 2022,14, 15297. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su142215297 Academic Editor: Silvia Fiore Received: 25 September 2022 Accepted: 10 November 2022 Published: 17 November 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 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 (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). sustainability Article Methodology for Improving the Sustainability of Industrial Buildings via Matrix of Combinations Water and Carbon Footprint Assessment Débora Lopes R. Silva 1, Cristina Rivero-Camacho 1, Diana Rusu 2,* and Madelyn Marrero 1 1Department of Building Construction II, University of Seville, 41004 Seville, Spain 2Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Transylvania University of Brasov, 500036 Brasov, Romania *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: In Spain, 90% of companies are small- or medium-sized and are usually located in industrial areas, in warehouses with particular characteristics. This paper presents a methodology for the environmental assessment of this type of construction with water and carbon footprint indicators. A database was developed for the identification of typologies and common construction elements based on a sample of 87 projects in the province of Seville. Based on this, the paper proposes a methodology for comparative analysis that merges the data obtained from the research survey with environmental and economic data. The work proposes a systematic classification of the construction units of industrial buildings in order to improve the sustainability of the decision-making process by introducing environmental information on construction materials and machinery. First, the most impactful elements were identified, and then the technical solutions were adjusted using solutions already in the sample of 87 industrial projects. Reductions of up to 74% in the carbon footprint and 54% of the water footprint were found, as well as 14% reduction in construction costs in the most favorable case. Keywords: industrial construction; water footprint; carbon footprint; environmental analysis; cost assessment; sustainable construction; decision-making 1. Introduction Globally, 82 billion square meters of built environment is expected to be built and rebuilt by the year 2030, which represents about 60% of the total inventory of buildings in urban areas [ 1 ]. Such construction accounted for 39% of global energy-related emissions in 2017, of which, 28% were caused by operations or direct impact and 11% by materials or indirect impact. The decarbonization of the built environment is essential to achieve the 1.5 ◦ C target of the Paris Agreement, both in terms of operational carbon and embodied carbon, which requires the assessment of the direct and indirect impact of the built environment [ 2 ]. The construction sector has a huge influence not only on CO 2 emissions but also on water consumption and treatment [ 3 ]. Optimizing energy and water consumption in buildings is an important step toward meeting the community’s 2030 goals [4]. To achieve this, knowing which construction option would bring more benefits in terms of sustainability is essential for any construction project. Professionals in this industry must be able to easily assess different construction options in order to make the best decision for sustainability. Aside from the technical aspects, environmental and economic aspects should also be considered. In the Spanish case, special interest should be given to an understudied sector: the construction of industrial buildings. Industrial activity represented 20% of the gross domestic product in 2019, and 46% more companies were created in 2021 compared to 2020. Notably, 90% of companies in Spain are medium or small, have less than 20 employees [ 5 ], Sustainability 2022,14, 15297. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215297 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2022,14, 15297 2 of 20 and are located in industrial parks. It is important that they grow sustainably to reduce the direct impact of their exploitation and expansion—mainly due to their production of natural resources—via the emission of pollutants and generation of solid waste, as well as their indirect impacts, such as the construction of infrastructure, on the air, soil, and water [6]. The environmental impact of industrial buildings has been explored by several authors; the main indicator used has been the carbon footprint (CF). In Bilbao, Spain, researchers from the University of the Basque Country developed a model for the environmental analysis of industrial buildings, evaluating quantitative and qualitative aspects that are transformed into a standard unit according to the importance of each aspect [ 7 ]. Another model, which was developed by Italian researchers, evaluates the CF of four industrial buildings; it is sensitive to modifications in thermal insulation and service life [ 8 ]. Heravi et al. included in their model the three dimensions of sustainability—environmental, social, and economic—for the life cycle of petrochemical projects, highlighting the importance of the sustainability of industrial buildings in developing countries [9]. Other works have focused on the façade of industrial buildings, such as Opher et al., who environmentally studied [ 10 ] the conservation of the façade of a heritage industrial building in Toronto by evaluating the greenhouse gas emissions of the life cycle. Their study included cradle-to-grave life-cycle assessment (LCA) of materials, transportation, and construction activities, in addition to foreseeable emissions due to operational energy consumption. They concluded that the CF incorporated into the restoration project was offset by operational energy savings over a period of 3 to 13 years, depending on the energy sources used. Another study on industrial building façades developed an environmental and economic life-cycle analysis tool for a three-façade system in which laminated timber produced 80% fewer emissions compared to steel structures and sandwich panels [11]. Recently, the ARDITEC research group began developing a platform for open educational resources intended for university students, professors, researchers, and companies that want to acquire knowledge about the methods of estimating the environmental impact of industrial buildings [ 6 ]. These resources use other indicators in addition to CF, such as the water footprint (WF). CF and WF indicators are favorable environmental indicators for public tenders and regulation development aiming to improve the sustainability of the life cycle of buildings, as they promote messages that are simple and understandable for the general public [12]. The CF aims to determine greenhouse gas emissions from processes [ 13 ] and is based on LCA data. The indicator is expressed in kilograms of CO 2 equivalent [ 14 ], being calculated with the GHG Protocol and PAS 2050 methodologies. The CF indicator is related to the main objectives of the Kyoto Protocol, due to its ease of understanding by the nonspecialized public and its simple application in environmental policy decision-making. However, reviews related to the use of the CF indicator in construction have detected that the results are not always comparable due to the lack of an international standard methodology, so studies have been carried out to establish emission scales in construction processes [15–17]. The WF footprint indicator was created to assess the total volume of fresh water used in the production of goods and services consumed by an individual or a community and is measured in m 3 [ 18 ]. WF considers the volume of fresh water used directly and indirectly. Indirect consumption, also known as virtual water, refers to water used in the manufacturing processes of production materials and equipment [ 19 ]. ISO 14,046 determines the requirements and guidelines necessary for the evaluation of products, processes, and organizations [ 20 ]. Buildings and their associated industry consume 30% of the freshwater available globally [ 21 ]. Therefore, the reduction of direct water footprint water consumption through more efficient systems, devices and appliances, and better treatment and recycling of wastewater is a major goal. Another large part of the consumption in the construction sector occurs indirectly through the production processes of materials and equipment, which is usually called indirect water or virtual water (VW) [ 22 ]. The materials Sustainability 2022,14, 15297 3 of 20 consume water in their extraction and manufacture, waste management, and reuse. While this approach has received criticism, it cannot be ignored [ 23 ] given the substantial developments it has provided. Crawford and Pullen [ 24 ] studied the WF in residential buildings over a period of 50 years and concluded that VW in building materials is greater than direct household consumption. Other researchers have concentrated their effort on the VW assessment, for example, measuring it in the construction of a multi-story residential apartment in Kolkata, India [ 25 ]. In Beijing, researchers determined the total footprint of nine projects [ 26 ], while in Tehran, researchers measured the WF of six residential buildings [ 27 ]. In the case of buildings, WF can be analyzed from a global perspective using an input–output analysis of consumption in the country [ 28 ] or with models that evaluate the components of construction projects [ 26 ]. In keeping with a component-evaluation approach, the ARDITEC group uses the inventory of resources that is defined in the economic control of the projects [29]. In order to measure the impact of buildings, it is essential to design automated systems based on, for example, standardized databases of quantitative data collected from research and construction cost assessment [ 30 ]. The ARDITEC group also calculates the CF of buildings using cost databases and is developing a methodology based on an environmental budget perspective [ 31 ] while measuring all necessary resources across the life cycle of the building [ 32 ]. Similar cost databases such as ITeC [ 33 ] and CyPE [ 34 ] are available on the market. These initiatives could facilitate, for example, the implementation of Spanish law LPSC_9/2017, which regulates public contracts and establishes a framework involving economic, environmental, and social criteria. They can also promote green public procurement via legislation for environmental policies related to climate change and the sustainable production and use of resources [ 35 ]. The main objective of this study was to optimize the design process with the use of new tools. To do so, it was necessary as a secondary objective to create a cost database for the construction of industrial buildings that is accompanied by environmental indicators, such as CF and WF, that facilitates design decisions, as a supporting tool for professionals in the field (architects, designers, constructors) or investors and beneficiaries. Therefore, it was necessary to define a standardized classification of work units to introduce product environmental information. This paper proposes a method for the evaluation of industrial projects and the optimization of their design. A new database of industrial buildings characteristics that combines cost with environmental data optimizes the design process with an Excel tool that easily allows the selection of less impacting solutions. The tool is defined with data collected from 87 surveys that can be easily updated by adding more projects or new construction solutions with their corresponding cost and environmental information. For the validation of the new database and its methodology, four warehouses built in the province of Seville (Spain) were used to identify the potential of the tool. The tool is used with a budgetary structure, being a system with which the participants in the project are already familiar, so that a double analysis—economic and environmental—is possible. 2. Research Methodology The research methodology of this work was divided into three phases: development, application, and validation of the model. In turn, sub-levels were established according to the order of execution of each of the tasks necessary to achieve the objectives, see Figure 1. The research phases and the corresponding activities are presented in the following sections. In the first phase (model development), the research team conducted the activities shown in Figure 1in parallel to create two databases, one with the project quantities (based on the surveys on the industrial buildings) and one with the economic and environmental costs of each stage and task of a construction project. These two databases were afterwards correlated to create an Excel tool that facilitates the determination of the total economic and environmental costs for different typologies of industrial buildings. Sustainability 2022,14, 15297 4 of 20 Figure 1. Methodology of the environmental and economic impact assessment model. The second phase applied the model to four cases to test the validity of the model. These cases were chosen from the 22 different typologies identified as a result of the collection and processing of data from the surveys previously conducted. Finally, the results obtained were compiled to show the financial and environmental impact of each construction element. To test the validity of the tool proposed, a scenario was chosen in which the original elements were fictionally replaced with others with less environmental and financial impact. The paper proposes a methodology for creating a tool based on this database to support decision-making for sustainability. The final database is a dynamic object that can be updated in time with additional data about other industrial buildings to improve the quality of information offered, making it easier to find a project in the database that matches a given project. 2.1. Model Development 2.1.1. Project Quantities Database The project quantities were collected in surveys in the province of Seville. The surveys included qualitative questions that correspond to the seven items in Table 1and 56 quantitative questions listed in the column “concepts” of Appendix D. The data were transformed into quantities of each construction element by floor area. In the next step, the data collected were analyzed, and the projects with similar characteristics were grouped and average values were calculated. The projects were classified according to the characteristics shown in Table 1: height, foundation type, structure type, and roof type. Sustainability 2022,14, 15297 5 of 20 Table 1. Identified typologies. Type Samples Height (m) Plants Additional Floor Foundation Type Structure Type Roof Type 1 4 5–7.5 1 Trenches Metallic Sloped 2 1 7.5–10 1 Trenches Metallic Sloped 3 12 7.5–10 1 Isolated footings Metallic Sloped 4 3 3.5–5 1 Isolated footings Metallic Sloped 5 43 5–7.5 1 Isolated footings Metallic Sloped 6 1 >10 1 Isolated footings Metallic Sloped 7 1 7.5–10 1 Mezzanine Isolated footings Metallic Sloped 8 1 >10 2 Isolated footings Metallic Sloped and horizontal 9 1 7.5–10 2 Trenches Concrete Sloped and horizontal 10 1 5–7.5 1 Piles Mixed Sloped 11 1 7.5–10 1 Running ditches Concrete Sloped 12 2 7.5–10 1 Isolated footings Concrete Sloped 13 1 7.5–10 1 Basement + Mezzanine Isolated footings Metallic Sloped 14 4 5–7.5 1 Mezzanine Isolated footings Metallic Sloped 15 1 5–7.5 1 Mezzanine Isolated footings—Trenches Mixed Sloped 16 2 >10 2 Piles Concrete Sloped 17 1 >10 2 Isolated footings Metallic Sloped 18 1 5–7.5 2 Isolated footings Metallic Sloped 19 3 7.5–10 2 Isolated footings Metallic Sloped 20 1 7.5–10 1 Mezzanine Isolated footings Metallic Sloped and horizontal 21 1 7.5–10 2 Basement Slabs Metallic Sloped 22 1 7.5–10 3 Isolated footings Metallic Sloped 2.1.2. Economic and Environmental Cost Database Cost control of construction projects always takes place and is based on the coding of the work units. Classification systems have been defined in different regions or countries [ 36 ]. This codification is necessary in order to define the budget of construction projects, unify elements and tasks that normally always take place, and obtain the resources inventory. The same codification can be employed for the environmental assessment and its controls. In the present work, the construction options and costs were based on the coding in the Andalusia Construction Cost Database or ACCD [ 37 ], which we considered adequate for our objectives [ 38 ]. The structure of the ACCD is pyramidal: at its apex are the work phases, named chapters in the classification, which group the tasks by stage of execution of the project; for example, foundation, sewerage, structures, facilities, etc. At the next level are the unit costs that define units of work within the phases; the latter are formed by the basic costs (materials, labor, and machinery). The coding is alphanumeric, as shown in Figure 2, and the structure of the classification with an example of each level is displayed in Table 2. These follow the cost structure established by the Law on Public Sector Contracts and its implementing regulations to allocate direct costs to each unit of work [ 39 ]. We employed 140 construction solutions from the ACCD and created 16 new ones with the support of the online tool “Construction Cost Generator” [ 35 ] but powered by basic elements of the ACCD. Sustainability 2022,14, 15297 6 of 20 Figure 2. The classification and coding of the Andalusia Construction Cost Database; A stands for alphabetic letters, and N is for numbers. Table 2. ACCD classification hierarchy. Class Levels Definitions L1. Construction site All the construction elements on a construction site L2. Chapter Main stages of a dwelling construction project. e.g.,: 03. Foundations. L3. Sub-Chapter Chapter division. e.g.,: 03C. Foundations. L4. Section Sub-Chapter division. e.g.,: 03CP. Foundation pile. L5. Group Section division. e.g.,: 03CPS. Foundation pile in-situ. L6. Unit Cost Group division into unitary elements. e.g.,: 03CPS 00007 m Concrete pile in situ with 65 cm diameter. In the next research phase, we distributed a questionnaire to the selected sample of 87 warehouses in Spain. The questions of the survey were grouped in two categories: fixed and multiple choice. The first category contained elements that did not usually have a wide variety of options in the sample, so they were assigned a single unit cost; see Table 3. The first column corresponds to the code in the ACCD and the second to its concept. Table 3. Sections that contain only one unit cost in the sample. ACCD Code Concept 02EX Excavations 02RR Filled 03AX Rebar 03HM Concrete in mass 04EA Manholes and wells 04VB Downspouts 05AC Hot-rolled steel 05AF Cold rolled steel 05HA Steel rebar 05HE Formwork 05MX Structural wood 06DX Interior brickwork 06DY Interior partition (distribution) Sustainability 2022,14, 15297 7 of 20 Table 3. Cont. ACCD Code Concept 08EC Circuits 08ED Derivations 08EL Points of light 08EP Grounding conductor 10CG Plaster The multiple-choice categories, in Table 4, have a code and a concept but were grouped into families of construction elements based on main characters, as shown in the fourth column, giving rise to the matrix of combinations. Table 4. Sections with more than one unit cost option in the sample. ACCD Code Concept Quantity Construction Elements 10AA Tiled 5 Façade Finishes 10AC Plated 3 Façade Finishes 13EX Exterior paintings 4 Façade Finishes 13IX Interior paintings 4 Interior Finishes 12XX Glazing 4 Glazing 09AX Acoustic insulation 3 Acoustic Insulation—Walls and Acoustic Insulation—Floors 09TX Thermal insulation 6 Thermal Insulation—Walls and Thermal Insulation—Floors 06LX Exterior brick work 4 Masonry Façade 06PA Prefabricated metal 1 Masonry Façade 06PH Prefabricated concrete 3 Masonry Façade 10RX Finishes and windowsills 7 Windowsill 10RX Finishes and windowsills 8 Finishes 08CA Air conditioning and hot water appliances 8 Air Conditioning Devices and Terminal Units 08FS Sanitary appliances 4 Sanitary Appliances 08FF Water piping 4 Water Pipes 08CC Air conditioning ducts 4 Pipes 04EC Collectors 2 Collectors 07HX Horizontal covers 6 Horizontal Covers 07IX Sloping roofs 8 Sloping Roofs 03EX Formwork 2 Formwork 10CE Plastered 2 Plastered—Façade and Plastered—Partitions 05WF Reinforced concrete (structure) 2 Structure 10TX Ceilings 5 False Ceilings 05FX Forged 2 Forged 06BZ Walls of concrete blocks 1 Walls 06LZ Ceramic brick walls 1 Walls 03CP Piles 1 Reinforced Concrete (Foundation) 03HA Reinforced concrete 4 Reinforced Concrete (Foundation) 06LY Interior brickwork 5 Partitions 11AX Carpentry steel 3 Doors and Windows 11LX Aluminium carpentry 4 Doors and Windows Sustainability 2022,14, 15297 8 of 20 Table 4. Cont. ACCD Code Concept Quantity Construction Elements 11MX Wood carpentry 3 Doors and Windows 10SC Ceramic flooring 9 Floors in Small Areas 10SN Natural stone flooring 4 Floors in Small Areas 10SX Low density continuous flooring 1 Floors in Big Areas 10SY Medium density continuous flooring 1 Floors in Big Areas 10SZ High density continuous flooring 1 Floors in Big Areas 08ET Power outlets 3 Power Outlets 02TX Transport 2 Transport (Elevators) In the literature, environmental data are normally gathered per kg of material. However, the construction sector has traditional ways to measure and sell their materials. More specifically, while some materials are commercialized per kilogram or ton, others are sold by length, as is the case for door frames, per square meter for flooring or tiles, per cubic meter for concrete, etc. This required an additional tool in the Excel to determine the weight of the construction materials prior to making the environmental calculations. First, the original basic cost unit (m 2 , m, thousands of units, t, m 3 , etc.) was converted to m 3 , which, together with the densities established in the Catalogue of Constructive Solutions of the Technical Building Code [ 40 ], determined the weight of each element. Table 5shows an example of calculations for foundation piles, measured per meter of concrete pile, fabricated in situ, with 65 cm diameter. The quantities refer to the amount of basic element that is needed in one unit of pile per meter. The information in the column “Type” refers to the element nature, where MAT stands for construction materials and MAQ for machinery. Table 5. Calculation of the basic elements that are part of the work unit of the foundation pile, with code 03CPS00007, which is measured per meter. Type ACCD Code Basic Cost Quantity Unit Name Basic Cost (€) Cost in Unit (€/m) WF in Basic (m3water/unit) WF in Unit (m3water/m) CF in Basic (kgCO2 eq/unit) CF in Unit (kgCO2 eq/m) MAT CA00320 10.47 kg Rebar steel b 500 s 0.81 8.48 0.027 0.283 1.457 15.251 MAT CH80150 0.43 m3Concrete 30 Mpa resistance 64.61 27.59 5.144 2.196 344.353 147.039 MAQ MC00100 0.03 hHammer compressor 6.35 0.19 0.236 0.007 4.960 0.149 MAT MP00210 0.434 m Pile perforation equipment (rent) 225.53 97.88 0.011 0.005 3.125 1.356 MAT MP00600 1 u Hammer repercussion tool 6.45 6.45 0.212 0.212 0.523 0.523 TOTAL 2.703 TOTAL 164.318 Along with the defined weights, the coefficients of environmental impacts per kg were calculated through the Simapro LCA software [ 41 ], together with the Ecoinvent database [42], as follows: IMAT = (Σi Ci×UMAT) + (UTRAN ×Ci), (1) where: IMAT = environmental impact of building material (kgCO2eq/kg, m3water/kg) UMAT = unit impact of manufacture per kg of material (kgCO2eq/kg, m3water/kg) UTRAN = unit impact of transport per kg of material (kgCO2eq/kg, m3water/kg) Ci= consumption of building material i (kg). The impact of construction machinery depends on its power and hours in operation, which determine the kWh consumed on site, and the corresponding CO2emissions [43]. Sustainability 2022,14, 15297 9 of 20 The fuel consumption in liters is V = (P ×T×Y), (2) where P refers to the machine power (kW), T is the usage time (hours), and Y is the fuel consumed by the engine, depending on whether it is diesel or gasoline (l/kWh). The fuel machinery impact is MCOMB, found by MCOMB = V ×IF(m3water; tCO2eq), (3) where IFis the impact of fuel; diesel or gasoline (m3water/lfuel; tCO2eq/lfuel). For electrical machinery, the total kWh consumed is obtained by analyzing the engine power and the hours of use [ 44 ]. The CO 2 equivalent emissions generated in the production of one kWh is 0.248 kgCO 2 /kWh in the Spanish electricity system [ 45 ], measured via the global-warming potential (GWP) of the various gases emitted. The WF of electric machinery uses the WF associated with the Spanish energy mix. In the present work, 156 unit costs were employed and their environmental impacts were determined. 2.1.3. Data Association The data obtained from the project quantities were merged with the cost database (economic and environmental) to generate an Excel tool for calculating the total economic and environmental costs of 22 different industrial building typologies. The tool allows changing construction solutions among the ones in the database to make economic and environmental comparisons, helping the user to make a decision regarding the most sustainable option. In the event that a project does not contain in its survey all quantities, the average of the typology to which it belongs is used. In case the typology is formed by a single project, the general average is employed. 2.2. Model Application—Case Studies The 87 projects were grouped in 22 typologies described in Table 1, where the second column indicates the sample size in each typology. The 22 are represented in Appendices A–C, in which the cost, carbon footprint, and water footprint, respectively, are illustrated using a scale of colors that are most intense for the highest values. In all typologies, the impact of hot-rolled steel structures and reinforced concrete stood out. The impact of masonry impact is also significant when using block walls. Four projects with different combinations of stand-out characteristics were used for the validation of the model proposed, and four projects were chosen to show the potential of the tool. The projects had different floor areas, were with and without basement, metal or reinforced concrete structures, and four different foundations: slabs (PL), insulated footings (PZ), trenches (PC), and piles (PP) that correspond to typologies 21, 8, 9, and 16, respectively. The most relevant characteristics of the projects studied can be seen in Table 6, and the quantity survey is summarized in Appendix D. Table 6. Characteristics of the projects. Features/Projects PL PZ PC PP Floor area (m2)1535 12838 312 8896 Typology 21 8 9 16 Height from floor to ceiling (m) 7.5–10 >10 7.5–10 >10 Number of floors 2 2 2 2 Additional floor Basement - - - Foundation type Concrete slab Isolated footing Trenches Piles Structure type Metallic Metallic Concrete Concrete Sustainability 2022,14, 15297 16 of 20 Appendix B. Matrix of Water Footprint per Budget Classification, Dark Colors Represent Higher Impacts Chapter Work Unit/Project 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Average 02- Earthworks Excavations 3.51 ×10−3 Filled 3.27 ×10−2 Transport 2.87 ×10−2 03- Foundations Rebar 9.95 ×10−2 Piles 1.93 ×10−2 Formwork 7.10 ×10−1 Reinforced concrete 1.71 Concrete 3.47 ×10−1 04- Sewerage Manholes and wells 3.61 ×10−2 Collectors 6.64 ×10−2 Downspouts 6.10 ×10−2 05- Structures Hot-rolled steel 1.50 Cold rolled steel 3.50 ×10−2 Forged steel 2.57 ×10−1 Steel Rebar 1.08 ×10−2 Formwork 2.89 ×10−2 Reinforced concrete 3.74 Structural wood 5.84 ×10−3 06-Brick work Walls Blocks 4.41 ×10−1 Partition (chamber) 3.96 ×10−4 Partition (walls) 3.23 ×10−3 Int. Brick work 2.17 ×10−2 Precast concrete 1.27 07-Roofs Pitched roof 1.56 ×10−1 08- Installations A/C and DHW 4.41 ×10−2 A/C ducts 3.72 ×10−3 Circuits 3.29 ×10−2 Derivations 1.40 ×10−2 Points of light 1.46 ×10−2 Power outlets 3.64 ×10−2 Grounding conductor 2.77 ×10−2 Water pipes 4.68 ×10−3 Sanitary appliances 8.75 ×10−2 09- Insulation Acoustic insulation 8.93 ×10−3 Thermal Insulation 3.44 ×10−1 10-Finishes Plastered 3.30 ×10−3 Ceramic flooring 7.73 ×10−2 Light screeds 1.13 Ceilings 8.00 ×10−3 Windowsills 7.63 ×10−1 11- Carpentry and security Steel bar 1.10 ×10−1 12-Glass Glazing 3.13 ×10−2 13-Paints Exterior 1.81 ×10−2 Interior 3.49 ×10−1 Sustainability 2022,14, 15297 17 of 20 Appendix C. Matrix of Cost Impact per Budget Classification, Dark Colors Represent Higher Impacts Chapter Work Unit/Project 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Average 02- Earthworks Excavations 0.37 Filled 0.08 Transport 1.68 03- Foundations Rebar 4.37 Piles 1.18 Formwork 4.58 Reinforced concrete 30.12 Concrete 6.32 04-Sewerage Manholes and wells 4.85 Collectors 3.82 Downspouts 1.62 05-Structures Hot-rolled steel 40.92 Cold rolled steel 1.49 Forged steel 7.00 Steel Rebar 0.48 Formwork 0.09 Reinforced concrete 58.58 Structural wood 0.05 06-Brick work Walls Blocks 33.22 Partition (chamber) 0.03 Partition (walls) 0.39 Int. Brick work 1.59 Precast concrete 30.88 07-Roofs Pitched roof 22.49 08- Installations A/C and DHW 24.72 A/C ducts 0.49 Circuits 0.77 Derivations 0.25 Points of light 0.39 Power outlets 1.15 Grounding conductor 2.32 Water pipes 0.69 Sanitary appliances 2.68 09-Insulation Acoustic insulation 0.70 Thermal Insulation 8.42 10-Finishes Plastered 0.43 Ceramic flooring 1.82 Light screeds 56.65 Ceilings 1.20 Windowsills 2.95 11-Carpentry and security Steel bar 12.28 12-Glass Glazing 3.98 13-Paints Exterior 12.32 Interior 21.42 Sustainability 2022,14, 15297 18 of 20 Appendix D. Quantities of Work Units in the Four Typologies. U Refers to the Unit of Measurement of the Basic Element Code Concept Unit PL PZ PC PP 02EX Excavations m32.9621 0.8927 0.3736 0.0700 02RR Filled m30.0000 0.4750 0.0386 0.0100 02TX Transport m37.4052 2.2318 0.9340 0.0638 03AX Rebar kg 4.2974 6.4032 6.6761 0.1500 03CP Piles m 0.1085 0.1085 0.1085 0.2400 03EX Formwork m20.2854 0.2854 0.9682 0.2854 03HA Reinforced concrete m30.8542 0.2956 0.2498 0.0902 03HM Concrete in mass m30.0255 0.0274 0.0193 0.0100 04EA Manholes and wells or 0.0039 0.0169 0.0385 0.0100 04EC Collectors m 0.1898 0.5212 0.3758 0.0800 04VB Downspouts m 0.0000 0.0000 0.1155 0.0400 05AC Hot-rolled steel kg 16.8300 1.4283 1.3716 0.0000 05AF Cold rolled steel kg 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 05FX Forged m21.1686 0.2191 0.4212 0.6600 05HA Steel rebar m20.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.7800 05HE Formwork m20.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 05WF Reinforced concrete m30.3886 0.0620 0.0770 0.1000 05MX Structural wood m30.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 06BZ Walls blocks m20.2178 0.8125 0.8125 0.4454 06DX Partition (chamber) m20.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 06DY Partition (walls) m20.0414 0.0280 0.1033 0.0000 06LX Ext. brick work m20.2178 0.2994 0.2994 0.2994 06LY Int. brick work m20.4512 0.1129 0.1392 0.1129 06LZ Brick walls m20.9877 0.9877 0.9877 0.9877 06PA Prefabricated metal m20.6070 0.8238 0.6070 1.2000 06PH Prefabricated concrete m21.6124 2.7474 4.8602 1.0600 07HX Horizontal covers m20.0905 0.0905 0.1424 0.0905 07IX Sloping roofs m20.9934 2.5710 1.6400 1.4600 08CA A/C and DHW unit 0.0001 0.0021 0.0021 0.0021 08CC A/C ducts m 0.0416 0.0416 0.0416 0.0416 08EC Circuits m 0.0000 0.0000 0.2792 0.0000 08ED Derivations m 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 08EL Points of light unit 0.0000 0.0000 0.0513 0.0000 08ET Power outlets unit 0.0286 0.0286 0.0256 0.0286 08EP Grounding conductor m 0.1021 0.1021 0.1021 0.1021 08FF Water piles m 0.0777 0.0777 0.1604 0.0777 08FS Sanitary appliances unit 0.0104 0.0208 0.0320 0.0088 09AX Acoustic insulation m20.0740 0.0740 0.0740 0.0740 09TX Thermal insulation m20.6441 3.6304 0.3592 0.6441 10AA Tiled m20.1132 0.0962 0.2280 0.0962 10AC Plated m20.1260 0.5399 0.3462 0.5399 10CE Plastered m20.6510 1.3421 1.3421 1.3421 10CG Trim m20.0000 0.0000 0.0691 0.0000 10SC Ceramic flooring m20.3894 0.1148 0.1148 0.1148 10SN Natural stone flooring m20.1182 0.1182 0.4100 0.1182 10SX Light screeds m20.8623 0.8623 0.8623 0.8623 10SY Light heavy rigs m20.9358 2.8566 0.9358 1.3400 10SZ Heavy screeds m21.6268 0.9790 2.0600 0.9790 10TX False ceilings m20.3042 0.0778 0.0382 0.0778 10RX Finishes m 0.0768 0.0768 0.4520 0.1312 Sustainability 2022,14, 15297 19 of 20 Code Concept Unit PL PZ PC PP 11AX Carpentry steel m20.0242 0.2488 0.1734 0.0036 11LX Aluminium carpentry m20.0424 0.0330 0.1436 0.0800 11MX Wood carpentry m20.0160 0.0128 0.0128 0.0128 12XX Glazing m20.0567 0.0567 0.1738 0.0400 13EX Exterior paintings m20.8193 0.8193 0.8193 0.8193 13IX Interior paintings m20.7844 2.1344 0.1382 0.0383 References 1. Architecture 2030. Roadmap to Zero Emissions. 2014. Available online: https://architecture2030.org/wp-content/uploads/2018 /12/Roadmap-to-Zero-Emissions.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2022). 2. UN Environment Programme. Global Status Report 2018. 2018. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/ global-status-report-2018 (accessed on 24 September 2022). 3. Pasanen, P.; Sipari, A.; Terranova, E.; Castro, R.; Bruce-Hyrkas, T. The Embodied Carbon Review—Embodied Carbon Reduction 100+ Regulations and Rating Systems Globally; Bionova Ltd.: Hertfordshire, UK, 2018. 4. European Parliament and of the Council. Regulation (EU) 2018/841 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the Inclusion of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry in the 2030 Climate and Energy Framework, and Amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 and Decision No 529/2013/EU; European Parliament and of the Council: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. 5. Statista. Porcentaje de Participación en el Producto Interior Bruto (PIB) de los Sectores Económicos de España de 2008 a 2020. 2021. Available online: https://es.statista.com/estadisticas/501643/distribucion-del-producto-interior-bruto-pib-de-espana- por-sectores-economicos/ (accessed on 20 August 2022). 6. Marrero, M.; Rivero-Camacho, C.; Martínez-Rocamora, A.; Alba-Rodríguez, M.D.; Solís-Guzmán, J. Life Cycle Assessment of Industrial Building Construction and Recovery Potential. Case Studies in Seville. Processes 2022,10, 76. [CrossRef] 7. San-JoséLombera, J.T.; Cuadrado Rojo, J. Industrial building design stage based on a system approach to their environmental sustainability. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010,24, 438–447. [CrossRef] 8. Bonamente, E.; Cotana, F. Carbon and energy footprints of prefabricated industrial buildings: A systematic life cycle assessment analysis. Energies 2015,8, 12685–12701. [CrossRef] 9. Heravi, G.; Fathi, M.; Faeghi, S. Evaluation of sustainability indicators of industrial buildings focused on petrochemical projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,109, 92–107. [CrossRef] 10. Opher, T.; Duhamel, M.; Posen, I.D.; Panesar, D.K.; Brugmann, R.; Roy, A.; Zizzo, R.; Sequeira, L.; Anvari, A.; MacLean, H.L. Life cycle GHG assessment of a building restoration: Case study of a heritage industrial building in Toronto, Canada. J. Clean. Prod. 2021,279, 123819. [CrossRef] 11. Kovacic, I.; Waltenbereger, L.; Gourlis, G. Tool for life cycle analysis of facade-systems for industrial buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,130, 260–272. [CrossRef] 12. Ruiz-Pérez, M.R.; Alba-Rodríguez, M.D.; Rivero-Camacho, C.; Solís-Guzmán, J.; Marrero, M. The budget as a basis for ecological management of urbanization projects. Case study in Seville, Spain. Sustainability 2021,13, 4078. [CrossRef] 13. Bare, J.C.; Hofstetter, P.; Pennington, D.W.; Udo de Haes, H.A. Midpoints versus endpoints: The sacrifices and benefits. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2000,5, 319–326. [CrossRef] 14. Weidema, B.P.; Thrane, M.; Christensen, P.; Schmidt, J.; Løkke, S. Carbon Footprint. J. Ind. Ecol. 2008,12, 3–6. [CrossRef] 15. Geng, R.; Mansouri, S.; Aktas, E. The relationship between green supply chain management and performance: A meta-analysis of empirical evidences in Asian emerging economies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017,183, 245–258. [CrossRef] 16. Dossche, C.; Boel, V.; de Corte, W. Use of life cycle assessments in the construction sector: Critical review. Procedia Eng. 2017 ,171, 302–311. [CrossRef] 17. Chastas, P.; Theodosiou, T.; Kontoleon, K.J.; Bikas, D. Normalising and assessing carbon emissions in the building sector: A review on the embodied CO2emissions of residential buildings. Build. Environ. 2018,130, 212–226. [CrossRef] 18. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K.; Aldaya, M.M.; Mekonnen, M.M. Water Footprint Manual: State of the Art 2009. 2009. Available online: researchgate.net (accessed on 2 August 2022). 19. WFN Organization. Water Footprint Network [WWW Document]. 2020. Available online: https://waterfootprint.org/en/ (accessed on 19 June 2022). 20. ISO/TC 207/SC 5; ISO 14046:2014 Specifies Principles, Requirements and Guidelines Related to Water Footprint Assessment of Products, Processes and Organizations Based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). ISO Publishing: Geneve, Switzerland, 2014. 21. UNEP United Nations Environment Programme. UNEP 2006 Annual Report; UNEP: Athens, Greece, 2006. 22. Beltran, M.J.; Velazquez, E. The Political Ecology of Virtual Water and Water Footprint. Reflections on the Need for a Critical Analysis of the Indicators of Virtual Water Flows in the Economy. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2015,39, 1020–1036. [CrossRef] 23. Velázquez, E.; Madrid, C.; Beltrán, M.J. Rethinking Concepts of Virtual Water and Water Footprint in Relation to the Production– Consumption Binomial and the Water–Energy Nexus. Water Resour. Manag. 2011,25, 743–761. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2022,14, 15297 20 of 20 24. Crawford, R.; Pullen, S. Life Cycle Water Analysis of a Residential Building and Its Occupants. Build. Res. Inf. 2011 ,39, 589–602. [CrossRef] 25. Bardhan, S. Assessment of Water Resource Consumption in Building Construction in India. Ecosyst. Sustain. Dev. 2011 ,144, 1743–3541. [CrossRef] 26. Han, M.Y.; Chen, G.Q.; Meng, J.; Wu, X.D.; Alsaedi, A.; Ahmad, B. Virtual Water Accounting for a Building Construction Engineering Project with Nine Sub-Projects: A Case in E-Town, Beijing. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,112, 4691–4700. [CrossRef] 27. Heravi, G.; Abdolvand, M.M. Assessment of Water Consumption during Production of Material and Construction Phases of Residential Building Projects. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019,51, 101785. [CrossRef] 28. Chang, Y.; Huang, Z.; Ries, R.J.; Masanet, E. The embodied air pollutant emissions and water footprints of buildings in China: A quantification using disaggregated input-output life cycle inventory model. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,113, 274–284. [CrossRef] 29. Ruiz Pérez, M.R.; Alba Rodríguez, M.D.; Marrero Meléndez, M. The water footprint of city naturalisation. Evaluation of the water balance of city gardens. Ecol. Model. 2020,424, 109031. [CrossRef] 30. Abanda, F.H.; Oti, A.H.; Tah, J.H.M. Integrating BIM and new rules of measurement for embodied energy and CO 2 assessment. J. Build. Eng. 2017,12, 288–305. [CrossRef] 31. Freire-Guerrero, A.; Alba-Rodríguez, 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, 101737. [CrossRef] 32. Rivero-Camacho, C.; Martín-Del-Río, J.J.; Solís-Guzmán, J.; Marrero, M. Ecological Footprint of the Life Cycle of Buildings. In Environmental Footprints and Eco-Design of Products and Processes; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 1–39. [CrossRef] 33. CYPE Ingenieros, S.A. Construction Cost Generator. Spain. 2022. Available online: http://www.generadordeprecios.info/#gsc. tab=0 (accessed on 24 September 2022). 34. Orden PCI/86/2019, de 31 de Enero, por la que se Publica el Acuerdo del Consejo de Ministros de 7 de Diciembre de 2018, por el que se Aprueba el Plan de Contratación Pública Ecológica de la Administración General del Estado, sus Organismos Autónomos y las Entidades Gestoras de la Seguridad Social (2018–2025). Ministerio de la Presidencia, Relaciones con las Cortes e Igualdad, Madrid. 2019. Available online: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2019/02/04/pdfs/BOE-A-2019-1394.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2022). 35. BCCA. Consejería de Fomento y Vivienda/Vivienda y Rehabilitación/Base de Costes de la Construcción de Andalucía (BCCA). 2021. Available online: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/organismos/fomentoarticulaciondelterritorioyvivienda/areas/ vivienda-rehabilitacion/planes-instrumentos/paginas/bcca-dic-2021.html (accessed on 24 September 2022). 36. BEDEC. 2019. Available online: https://itec.es/servicios/bedec/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_uimlvyv-wIVxOR3Ch0RKw1 _EAAYASAAEgKp1_D_BwE (accessed on 24 September 2022). 37. 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] 38. Real Decreto 1098/2001. Reglamento de la Ley de Contratos del Sector Público. s.l.:s.n. 2001. Available online: https://www.boe. es/eli/es/rd/2001/10/12/1098 (accessed on 24 September 2022). 39. Instituto Eduardo Torroja de ciencias de la construcción (IETcc). Catálogo de Elementos Constructivos del CTE. 2010. Available online: https://itec.cat/cec/ (accessed on 11 August 2022). 40. Pre Sustainability. SimaPro 8. 2016. Available online: https://pre-sustainability.com/legacy/download/SimaPro8Introduction- ToLCA.pdf (accessed on 11 August 2022). 41. Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.-J.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Heck, T.; Hellweg, S.; Hischier, R.; Nemecek, T.; Rebitzer, G. The ecoinvent database: Overview and methodological framework (7 pp). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2005,10, 3–9. [CrossRef] 42. Freire Guerrero, A.; Marrero, M. Evaluation of the embodied energy of a construction project using the budget. Habitat SustenTable 2015,5, 54–63. 43. Freire-Guerrero, A.; Marrero-Meléndez, M. Ecological Footprint in Indirect Costs of Construction. In Proceedings of the II International Congress on Sustainable Construction and Eco-Efficient Solutions, Seville, Spain, 25–27 May 2015; pp. 969–980. 44. REE. El sistema eléctrico español/The Spanish electric system. 2014. Available online: https://www.ree.es/sites/default/files/ downloadable/inf_sis_elec_ree_2014.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2022). 45. De Wolf, C. Material Quantities in Building Structures and their Environmental Impact. Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA, USA, 2014. 46. Solís-Guzmán, J.; Rivero-Camacho, C.; Alba-Rodríguez, D.; Martínez-Rocamora, A. Carbon Footprint Estimation Tool for Residential Buildings for Non-Specialized Users: OERCO2 Project. Sustainability 2018,10, 1359. [CrossRef] 47. Martínez-Rocamora, A.; Rivera-Gómez, C.; Galán-Marín, C.; Marrero, M. Environmental benchmarking of building typologies through BIM-based combinatorial case studies. Autom. Constr. 2021,132, 103980. [CrossRef] 48. Ruiz-Pérez, M.R.; Alba-Rodríguez, M.D.; Marrero, M. Evaluation of water footprint of urban renewal projects. Case study in Seville, Andalusia. Water Res. 2022,221, 118715. [CrossRef] 49. Meng, J.; Chen, G.Q.; Shao, L.; Li, J.S.; Tang, H.S.; Hayat, T.; Alsaedi, A.; Alsaadi, F. Virtual water accounting for building: Case study for E-town, Beijing. J. Clean Prod. 2014,68, 7–15. [CrossRef] 50. Rivero-Camacho, C.; Marrero, M. Water Footprint of the Life Cycle of Buildings: Case Study in Andalusia, Spain. Green Energy Technol. 2022, 135–165. [CrossRef]