Sustainable Futures 4 (2022) 100100

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Futures
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/sustainable-futures

Embodied carbon and economic cost analysis of a contemporary house

design using local and reused materials
Paulo Mendonca *, Clara Vieira
Lab2PT, University of Minho Azurém Campus, Guimarães 4800-058, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper presents a house design that uses adobe in the walls and wood in the roof, a mixed building system
Sustainable construction that vernacular houses in the region where it is located already use, however it presents a contemporary strategy
Reuse based on less, more natural, reused, and local materials, implying also less transport. The environmental impact
Local materials, Adobe, Wood frame
analysis of the Case Study was made considering the Embodied Carbon of the construction materials used and
compared with conventional building systems. In spite of presenting a much lower embodied carbon than all the
conventional solutions in comparison, it turns to be more expensive.

1. Introduction with its use.

For example, in a first phase of the project it is important to analyze
“For a long time the growth looks insignificant. There appears to be the site, the characteristics of the climate, the recurrent construction
no problem” [1]. However, time ended up revealing that this was not the practice and the materials available. Choosing local materials and
case. The mentality focused only on the unlimited economic growth, techniques, in addition to adapting to the place and promoting local
brought with it a wave of excesses in: extraction of natural resources, economy by adopting local labour, reduces the impact caused by their
production, consumption, waste, and, of course, their related pollutant transport. The second phase of the project, in which areas, program
emissions. content and volume are determined, is when the quantity of material to
The construction industry is one of the sectors with great re­ be used in the building construction is determined. By avoiding using
sponsibility for green-house effect gas emissions. Buildings are respon­ unnecessary amounts of material, whether by reducing the building area
sible for more than half of the pollutant emissions responsible for global or overlapping layers of materials, the impact is further reduced.
warming [2], and the consumerist trend that extends to architecture, Environmental policies in construction sector have been mainly
ends up to contribute for it. Nowadays, architecture is constantly focused on the adoption of energy efficiency measures during the use
manipulated by the real estate market to match the expected aesthetic phase of buildings that, by improving the building’s functional behav­
trends. Although buildings are, in its physical form, composed of an iour and, consequently, increase comfort, providing less maintenance
agglomerate of different materials, each with its own function, many cost and less impact on environment. This is connected with the fact that
times they end up covered by others, just to be more aesthetically national [4] and european regulation [5] is mostly focused on the
acceptable. Any material production causes environmental impact, so, if thermal performance of buildings. However, the option for the use of
materials are added just to hide others, the construction is overloaded more sustainable materials in the construction phase of buildings, in
with unnecessary impacts. This trend drags on even to coatings that end terms of their production, has been a strategy relegated to a secondary
up being coated [3]. All design stages that precede construction influ­ plane. The material itself implies an associated impact, thus, the judi­
ence, albeit indirectly, the environmental impact of buildings. The de­ ciously selection of materials to be used has a significant influence on the
cisions related with the shape of the building and its location, allow to impact of buildings regarding all phases of its life cycle. This work in­
control its behaviour, in terms of passive heating, cooling, natural light tends to demonstrate that, by avoiding the use of new and industrialized
and ventilation. Naturally, when planned to achieve good behaviour in materials, replacing them as much as possible with reused, natural and
the most natural way possible, it ends up reducing the energy con­ locally available ones, such as adobe in the walls, wood in the roof
sumption, thus reducing the environmental impact of building related structure and second hand materials found in online selling platforms is

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Mendonca).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2022.100100
Received 25 May 2022; Received in revised form 17 October 2022; Accepted 2 November 2022
Available online 4 November 2022
2666-1888/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
P. Mendonca and C. Vieira Sustainable Futures 4 (2022) 100100

possible to reduce the environmental impact related with the building assessment is based in the first parameter: (i) Global warming. The other
envelope, but still being economically feasible. A single-family house parameters that were not evaluated are: (ii) Ozone depletion; (iii)
whose envelope was conceived according to these principles is pre­ Acidification for soil and water; (iv) Eutrophication; (v) Photochemical
sented as a demonstrative case study. ozone creation; and (vi) Depletion of abiotic resources-fossil fuels [8].
This paper is organized in the following sections: 2 - the methods The first step in the quantification of the environmental impacts is
used are the among the most commonly considered and used on the LCA the inventory analysis [12]. Taking into consideration the aims of the
and cost evaluation; 3 - the case study characterization and implemented study, it was only considered the production of materials and its trans­
strategies to reduce the environmental impact; 4 - the Embodied Carbon portation. The end-of-life scenario was not considered.
Assessment of Case Study House and comparison to commons solutions The calculation of the environmental indicators (Life Cycle Impact
used; 5 - the Economic Cost Analysis of Case Study House and com­ Assessment - LCIA) demands specific knowledge of life cycle inventory
parison to common solutions used; 6 – the discussion where both the datasets, in particular, how these are composed and what is included, i.
embodied carbon and economic analysis are summarized and its recip­ e., the system boundary and allocation rules are crucial [13]. Nowadays,
rocal connection; 7 - the major conclusions. there is still a considerable lack of specific environmental information
for the major part of the construction products, i.e., Environmental
2. Methods Product Declarations (EPD). Since the development of specific envi­
ronmental information for products is very time and cost consuming,
It is the selection of the materials that has most significant conse­ initial LCA studies, which main goal is to de-fine the design alternative
quences on the environmental impact of the construction. At the time of to be further developed, are normally based in generic (average) data.
its selection some aspects must be taken into account: the amount of This study is based in one of the internationally accepted generic
material to be used; its nature (because the closer to its natural state, the Embodied Carbon databases, the ICE Database [14].
smaller its processing, and, consequently, the lesser its impact); prefer The economic cost analysis should be based in the whole life-cycle
reused materials (thus avoiding the pollution generated by the produc­ costs of the building system. At this stage, this study considered just
tion of new materials and also avoiding the production of solid waste, one economic indicator: construction materials cost (CC).
destined for garbage). These were the premises for considered in the
design of the Case Study presented and analyzed in this research. Life 3. Case study characterization and implemented strategies
Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a widely accepted tool to evaluate the po­
tential environmental burdens associated with a product, process, or The case study is a single-family house design (Fig. 1) developed
activity by identifying, quantifying and assessing the impact of the used during an academic research carried out by the second author under
energy, and materials, and the wastes released to the environment [6]. supervision of the first author and another supervisor, presented with
LCA considers the potential environmental impacts throughout a prod­ more detail in [3], which aims to counteract a whole set of trends in
uct’s life cycle (i.e. cradle to grave) from raw material acquisition contemporary architectural design: it minimizes itself in its area, seeks
through production, use and disposal. to optimize natural resources, and, above all, it has as a basic principle to
Although the LCA method was at first oriented to generic products or optimize the selection of materials. The design options, thought out from
services [7,8], its application in construction is now widely accepted and the initial stage and which ended up influencing the materials to be
considered in specific standards [9,10]. LCA is very important to selected, were based on four strategies in order to guarantee the mini­
compare several possible alternative solutions, which can bring about mum impact of the materials used in the building envelope: Less, More
the same required performance but that differ in terms of environmental natural, More reuse, Less transport, More local.
consequences.
Assessment of buildings lifecycle environmental impacts is often 3.1. Less
dominated by energy consumption during the operation phase: it is
estimated that the operation phase in conventional buildings represents “It’s that simple: reduce the amount of materials in a building” [3].
approximately 80% to 94% of the life cycle energy use, while 6% to 20% The best way to avoid pollution is not to pollute. Thus, in the case study
is consumed in materials extraction, transportation and production and design, only the needed materials were used. The structural materials
less than 1% is consumed through end-of-life treatments [9]. Never­ are apparent, where possible, and coatings were added only when
theless, with the increasing requirements on energy efficiency, namely strictly necessary - it is essential to waterproof the roof, for example. The
in Europe by Energy Performance Building Directive [5] and their solution here implemented was reused galvanized steel panels. The
regional adaptations, as well as the use of less polluting energy sources, moisture outside, or even in spaces such as the kitchen and bathroom,
the relative contribution of the material production and end of life would end up damaging the structural materials. And it is only in these
phases is expected to increase in the future [11]. cases that coatings were added, just to preserve essential materials, not
LCA is essentially an iterative process that includes the following as aesthetical camouflage.
major stages [7]: (i) Goal and Scope Definition; (ii) Life Cycle Inventory
(LCI); Life Cycle Impact Analysis (LCIA) and interpretation of the results. 3.2. More natural
In the first stage, the purpose of the work, the audiences, the system
boundaries (temporal, geographical and technological), the sources of Each material represents an environmental impact, which can be
data and the environmental impact categories to be used are identified. illustrated by the carbon emissions that this material generates since it is
LCI stage includes collecting data for each unit process regarding all extracted from nature until its applied in the building [13]. Therefore,
relevant inputs and outputs of energy and mass flow, as well as data on choosing materials as close as possible to their natural state is always the
emissions to the air, land and water. The Life Cycle Impact Assessment simplest way to reduce the environmental impact of architecture.
(LCIA) phase evaluates potential environmental impacts. The purpose of Furthermore, the more artificial, the more industrial procedures
this phase is to estimate the importance of all environmental burdens involved, the more toxic that material will generally be. And "(…) in
obtained in the LCI by analyzing their influence on selected environ­ fact, a toxic material can never be good, neither for the environment nor
mental loads. The interpretation may be described as the systematic for human beings." [3] So, one way to reduce the environmental impact
procedure to identify, qualify, check, and evaluate the results of the LCI was precisely to opt for natural materials [15]. The structural walls are
and LCIA stages [11]. The modules considered in the analysis of this case in double pane of adobe masonry, using the most primitive technique:
study were those mentioned in EN 15978:2011 related only with the the earth is extracted from the ground at the construction site, and the
production of materials (modules A1-A3). The embodied carbon blocks are moulded in wooden moulds and placed to dry in the sun. The

2
P. Mendonca and C. Vieira Sustainable Futures 4 (2022) 100100

Fig. 1. Isometric view and vertical section of the Case Study House.

covering and structural reinforcement of the masonry walls - pillars at their position in the Case Study House facades.
the intersection of the wall panels, to avoid disconnections; and a
wooden plank at the top of the wall, for a correct distribution of the roof
3.4. Less transport, more local
weight - are made of local pine wood. The use of concrete, which does
not fit the Case Study principles, comes from the impossibility of using
“It would be ironic if the transport of a natural material would
adobe to perform the structural function of foundation. In the past, it
pollute more than the sum of the production and transport of an in­
was often used stone, to support the structure, but with the structural
dustrial alternative” [3]. All reused materials were selected considering
instability that this represented, it ended up not being allowed its use in
a maximum distance of 50 km from the house location site (Fig. 4),
such an important role as the foundation of the buildings. Thus, a lean
50km south of Porto, the second biggest city in Portugal, and the most
concrete would be applied, with the highest possible percentage of inert
far location of the materials considered in the design. Adobe, the most
material. Another material necessary for the proper functioning of the
significant material in terms of weight applied in this case study, was
house is thermal and acoustic insulation. Although they are not the most
produced from local soil, therefore without transport impact. Adobe
common or cheaper insulation solutions, we can look for natural ma­
construction is a recurrent practice in Aveiro, the capital city of a Por­
terials with low conductivity, which allow to perform this function, such
tuguese district, and where the Case Study is located [16]. In fact, this
as cork, a natural resource that Portugal has in abundance, being the
very natural construction, which is part of the building heritage of the
largest producer in the world. For this purpose, an Expanded Cork panel
place, has been disappearing, reducing its practice. Earth construction
assumes the outer layer of the walls as an External Thermal Insulation
represents nowadays only 1% of buildings throughout the country [17].
Composite System (ETICS), allowing the interior temperature and hu­
Pine wood and cork are natural materials of national origin, lightweight
midity to be more effectively regulated by the wall elements in earth.
and produced locally.

3.3. More reuse 4. Embodied carbon assessment of case study house and
comparison to commons solutions
“Although all these material options minimize most of the impact,
reusing is preventing these impacts from happening.” [3] Since there are The materials used in the exterior walls and structure on housing
materials needed for the proper functioning of the house, at least they buildings in Portugal are generally heavyweight [18]. Concrete and
should not produce significant impact! Most of the coatings to be applied brick are used in the conventional construction system that allows high
in the Case Study are reused from dismantled buildings, or simply result thermal inertia and acoustic insulation. Following a previous study by
from stock discontinuation. The materials used are: granite slabs, for the Mendonça [19], it could be concluded that brick accounts for almost
exterior pavement to access the house; galvanized steel panels for 40% of the Embodied Energy (EE) and consequently also of the
covering the roof; wood recovered from pallets, which covers the entire Embodied Carbon (EC) of the conventional building construction, and
interior floor; OSB boards, which cover the outside of the service bath­ especially on exterior walls. Thus, for obtaining more environmentally
room; antique tiles covering the damp area of the kitchen; discontinued sustainable building solutions, the consideration of materials with less
ceramic tiles for cladding in both bathrooms; wooden beams that line EC than brick and concrete should be pondered. The use of more
the entrance area. And finally, the window frames, which are all reused. lightweight and prefabricated solutions [17], even when associated to
Through an intensive survey of their availability on various internet conventional heavyweight solutions in what can be called as mixed
platforms, window frames were adapted and integrated in all facades weight solutions, has proved to present less embodied energy and be at
that otherwise would probably be destined to garbage or recycling. In least equally efficient in terms of functional performance [19].
Figs. 2 and 3 can be seen the window frames selected by this process and Combining the traditional materials used in traditional construction in

3
P. Mendonca and C. Vieira Sustainable Futures 4 (2022) 100100

Fig. 2. Reused window frames in south facade and vertical section of the Case Study House.

the region of the Case Study House – Earth and Wood, allows to obtain a Nobody!” (Ramage cit. on [20]). Concrete has been associated with
Mixed Weight solution, such as the one here proposed and analysed in significant environmental impacts of construction and, even so, its use
comparison with conventional construction (Concrete and Brick) and remains widespread and characteristic of conventional construction
with Lightweight prefabricated building systems (Light Steel Frame and [21]. In conventional concrete and brick system, the components are
Wood Frame solutions). In terms of thermal and acoustical insulation almost always permanently fixed, composing an inseparable unit, which
the Case Study solution considered the use of Expanded Cork, following causes components with short useful life to condition components with
a previous study by Mendonça [19] longer useful life. A fundamental principle for efficient reuse of building
“If we invented concrete today, nobody would think it was a good components is the differentiation between the building components.
idea (…) It’s liquid, needs special trucks, takes two weeks to get hard Systems that pretend to be easily disassembled should allow dry
and doesn’t even work if you don’t put steel in it. Who would do that? — assembling, with components prepared to be mechanically fixed and not

4
P. Mendonca and C. Vieira Sustainable Futures 4 (2022) 100100

Fig. 3. Reused window frames in west and north facades and vertical section of the Case Study House (adapted from [3]).

glued in a permanent and irreversible way. Modular buildings start to be

common in Portugal, mainly for single family houses. The most common
materials used in this type of buildings are timber and steel [21]. As
exterior cladding materials, these buildings preferably use wooden so­
lutions (strips, agglomerated or plywood panels), metal (profiled sheets
and sandwich panels), in ventilated façades, in addition to the ETICS
solution which is not very suitable for disassembly and transport.
Oliveira et al. [22] studied the viability of four constructive systems
used in South European countries (France, Greece, Italy, Portugal,
Spain) in terms of economic and environmental costs, considering the
cost of materials, shipping cost and labour cost. From this study, were
selected three of the constructive systems analysed for a current Portu­
guese typology of a single family housing dwelling: Conventional Sys­
tem (CS) made with non-structural hollow brick and structural
reinforced concrete frames; Light Steel Framing (LSF) and Wood Frame
(WF). These were compared with the case study system, called as A+W,
based on Adobe walls and WF roof. All systems were analysed without
foundations, as these were assumed to be equal for all the solutions.
The analysed solutions were defined to have in common the same
heat transfer coefficient for opaque horizontal elements 0,26W/m2.◦ C
and vertical opaque elements 0,30W/m2.◦ C (Table 1). These coefficients
respond to the required demands for the more severe climatic zone as
mentioned in the Portuguese thermal regulation [4]. The compositions
and U-values of the simulated solutions are shown on Table 1. The
thermal conductivity of the materials considered were presented in
Fig. 4. Origin location of the materials used in the Case Study House, available detail in Oliveira et al. [23], with exception for the adobe, that was
within a maximum radius of 50 km from the site. considered as 0,215W/m2.◦ C, based on Binici et al. [24]. The layers are
listed from the outdoor to the indoor in the envelope and partition walls,

5
P. Mendonca and C. Vieira Sustainable Futures 4 (2022) 100100

Table 1 as technical installations, were not evaluated as these would be equal in

Composition and U-values in W/m2.◦ C of the analysed solutions. all compared solutions. The methodology considered in the weight
Conventional Solution – CS evaluation of the CS, LSF and WF solutions are described in detail in
Envelope mm Partition mm Roof mm Oliveira et al. [23].
1 Hollow Brick 150 Plaster 15 XPS 140 In the definition of the transportation flows, assessment assumed an
2 Air Gap 40 Hollow Brick 110 Pot and Beam 240 average distance from the manufacturer of each material to the building
3 XPS 90 Plaster 15 Plaster 15 site of 200 km, with exception to the case study where the reused
4 Hollow Brick 110 products were considered with the accurate distance, within a radius of
U 0.30 0.26
Light Steel Framing - LSF
50 km from the site. For the Adobe used in external walls, composed by
Envelope mm Partition mm Roof mm soil extracted and moulded in the site, the transport considered was of
1 OSB 18 Plaster board 13 OSB 20 0 km. The potential Embodied Carbon of the transportation are assessed
2 Air Gap 35 Rock wool 80 Rock wool 130 according to the expected type of transportation (by truck) and distance.
3 Rock wool 110 Air Gap 40 Air Gap 50
By the analysis of Fig. 5, it can be concluded that A+W Case Study
4 OSB 18 Plaster board 13 OSB 20
U 0.30 0.26 solution using adobe in the exterior walls and wood in the roof allows a
Wood Frame - WF reduction of 86% in Embodied Carbon of materials production and
Envelope mm Partition mm Roof mm
1 OSB 18 Plaster board 13 OSB 20
2 Air Gap 35 Rock wool 80 Rock wool 130
3 Rock wool 110 Air Gap 40 Air Gap 50
4 OSB 18 Plaster board 13 OSB 20
U 0.30 0.26
Adobe þ Wood Frame – AþW
Envelope mm Partition mm Roof mm
1 Adobe 300 Plaster board 13 OSB 20
2 Expanded Cork 80 Expanded Cork 80 Expanded Cork 160
3 Air Gap 40 Air Gap 50
4 Plaster board 13 OSB 20
U 0.30 0.26

and from the top to the bottom on the roof.

In Oliveira et al. [23] four environmental parameters were consid­
ered: Embodied Energy (EE), Global Warming Potential (GWP), Acid
Production Potential (APP) and Photo-chemical Ozone Creation Poten­
tial (POCP). In the present study the only environmental parameter
considered was the Embodied Carbon (EC). The EC was estimated both
for the production of materials as well as the transport. The Embodied
Carbon assessment was based on EN 15978, regarding only the building
production phase and adopting the average values available in the ICE
Database [14]. In Table 2 are presented in detail the evaluation of EC for
the 4 analysed solutions. In this study was considered just the envelope
and dividing walls as well as the roof. The envelope walls and roof
present similar properties in terms of U value in all the solutions and are
adequate to Portuguese thermal regulations [4]. The foundations were
not considered, as these were assumed to be equal for all the solutions Fig. 5. Materials Production and Transport Embodied Carbon of the
analyzed solutions.
and depending on the type of soil. All other common specifications, such

Table 2
Embodied Carbon assessment of the analysed solutions.
Total Materials Weight (kg) Weight (kg/m2) Embodied Carbon (Kg CO2e/Kg)* Embodied Carbon (Kg CO2e) Embodied Carbon (Kg CO2e/m2)

CS Concrete 48033.6 0.13 6244.4

Clay Bricks and Blocks 32929.8 0.21 6915.3
Steel rods 7002.0 1.71 11973.4
Mortar 4579.2 0.20 915.8
XPS 945.9 3.29 3112.0
Sum 93490.5 649.2 29160.9 202.5
LSF Profiled steel 7744.6 3.03 23466.1
OSB 5931.1 0.46 2698.7
Rockwool 2368.3 1.12 2652.5
Plasterboard 2217.6 0.39 864.9
Sum 18261.6 126.8 29682.1 206.1
WF Local timber 6380.0 0.49 3145.3
OSB 5931.1 0.46 2698.7
Rockwool 2375.6 1.12 2660.7
Plasterboard 907.2 0.39 353.8
Sum 15593.9 108.3 8858.5 61.5
A+W Adobe 66120.0 0.02 1520.8
Expanded cork 5820.0 0.19 1105.8
Local timber 3685.0 0.49 1816.7
Sum 75625.0 525.2 4443.3 30.9

Legend: CS – Conventional solution; LSF – Light Steel Frame; WF – Wood Frame; A+W – Adobe+Wood mixed solution; *Values based on reference [14].

6
P. Mendonca and C. Vieira Sustainable Futures 4 (2022) 100100

transport, in relation to the conventional hollow brick solution, and still Table 3
present 50% of reduction in relation with the second best solution, the Prices of each material applied in the Case Study House (excluding foundations).
Light Wood Frame. Regarding the EC, the exterior wall system using MATERIALS Area (m2) Cost/m2 (€/m2) Total cost (€)
natural material come out as more sustainable than the Conventional
Solution as well as the Light Steel Frame and Wood Frame solutions, STRUCTURE
considering both the EC of materials production and transport. Pine wood (Roof) - - 9452.00
The embodied carbon of the envelope materials in the Case Study in Adobe (Walls) 546.00 7.27 3 972.30
A+W is of 30.9 kg CO2e/m2. Assuming an LSF envelope EC would be of Concrete (Foundations) - - 30 182.90

206.1 kg CO2e/m2. In literature review presented in [18], the values are INSULATION
typically in the 63–864 CO2e/m2 ranges. Assuming a LWF envelope the Expanded Black Cork (ETICS) 267.20 33.50 8 950.00
EC reaches 61.5 kg CO2e/m2. In literature review [17], these values are
about 26–630 kg CO2e/m2 for WF houses. Assuming a conventional PAVEMENT
Compacted earth 39.05 8.46 330.40
Concrete and Brick envelope (CS), the EC would be of 202.5 kg
CO2e/m2. For CS in literature review these values are about 215–752 kg COATINGS
CO2e/m2 [19]. Reused 2 607.82
Marine Plywood 30.00 8.00 240.00
5. Economic cost analysis of case study house and comparison to Gray tiles 21.34 2.10 45.00
Galvanized sheet panels 247.50 3.43 850.00
common solutions Wooden bars 15.60 158.46 690.00
OSB boards 20.00 11.00 220.00
Economic cost is one of the most important factors to take into ac­ Old tiles 1.82 1.00 1.82
count when designing a building. When comparing the cost of each Pallet slats 100.00 4.81 481.00
Non-slipery granite slabs 22.80 3.50 80.00
material, for example, wood tends to loose, because the cost exceeds that
New 1 303.00
of concrete [23,25]. Although the final price is one of the main factors Pine planks 16.65 17.70 294.70
for those who invest in real estate, it is important to realize that the cost OSB boards 170.90 5.90 1 008.30
of materials will always depend on the market in which it operates, and
that is how the lower price of concrete is justified. Otherwise why would WINDOWS
Reused (varies) (varies) 2006.40
it make sense for a material with more manufacturing process to be
cheaper? It is always the adhesion that determines the market price. TOTAL COST (excluding foundations) 23933.00
However, there is always a way to ensure that the price of con­
2
struction does not rise: equilibrium. If wood takes an initial high price, COST BY m of Gross Area 323.42
use wood only in the quantity needed and don’t forget that in the end of
its useful life, the selective dismantling of a wood building is much
cheaper and less impacting than the dismantling of a concrete building. Table 4
The most appropriate strategy is to reduce the price of materials Construction cost of the analysed solutions (CS, WF and
whenever possible and look for a compromise between environmental LSF values based on [23]).
impact and cost. Construction cost (€/m2)
Controlling the prices of each material applied allowed the budget of CS 214.3
the Case Study House to be around 323.4 €/m2, as it can be seen in WF 295.1
Table 3, excluding foundations, glazing, installations and finishes. LSF 372.8
By the analysis of Table 4 it can be concluded that A+W Case Study A+W 323.4
solution is 51% more expensive than the Conventional Heavyweight Legend: CS – Conventional solution; LSF – Light Steel
solution and 10% more expensive than the Light Wood Frame solution, Frame; WF – Wood Frame; A+W – Adobe+Wood mixed
however it is 13% cheaper than the Light Steel Frame solution. The solution.
economic cost estimations for the reference solutions (CS, LSF and WF)
were based on a previous study where the author was also involved [23]. cost of steel. The A+W proposal is slightly more expensive than the WF
Despite not having been accounted for in this study, since the one. The embodied costs excluding foundations and installations are
reference solutions did not include these components in the comparative about 373 €/m2 for LSF, 295 €/m2 for WF, 214 €/m2 for CS and 323
analysis, the reuse of coatings and frames would significantly reduce the €/m2 for Case Study (A+W), In literature, the embodied costs typically
cost of these components, by 30%. range from 400 €/m2 to 1400 €/m2 [26,27], considering the
foundations.
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
In the analysis of the envelope solutions studied, considering its EC,
the most polluting solution is the conventional system (CS), if we include Although the reduced environmental impact of the Case Study so­
transport in the analysis, since the LSF solution, even though it is the one lution was a somewhat predictable conclusion, due to the fact that
with the greatest EC in its production, it becomes slightly less polluting Adobe and Wood are used, materials close to their natural state; the fact
than the CS if transport is included, as it is much lighter. The WF and that it could be a solution less expensive than that of the Wood Frame
A+W solutions are the least polluting. With regard to economic cost, the was not that predictable. In fact, there is always a tendency for the most
conventional solution turns out to be the cheapest, however, as it re­ current practice to be the most accessible due to the demand-supply law,
quires more transport, adding the associated costs, it ends up becoming however, what is not normally expected is that an intensive and un­
more expensive, depending on the distance at which the materials have conventional labour solution may still have a competitive cost.
to be purchased, being considered an average of 200 km in Portuguese As mentioned above, the case study intended to make a compromise
reality [23]. between environmental and economic costs, and hence the balance
The WF is the second cheapest solution, as it doesn’t need a lot of between Adobe structural walls together with a Wooden structure. Only
transport (like the LSF) it ends up gaining even more advantage in its the building materials production phase was considered. This balance
price. The LSF solution is the most ex-pensive solution due to the high

7
P. Mendonca and C. Vieira Sustainable Futures 4 (2022) 100100

turns out to be very visible in this analysis: as the Wooden structure is [2] S. Roaf, Ecohouse:. A casa ambientalmente sustentável: Sue Roaf, Manuel Fuentes,
Stephanie Thomas; trad. Alexandre Salvaterra, 3a edição, Bookman, Porto Alegre,
found, for the most part, in the roofing solution, we realize that its
2009. ISBN 978-85-7780-361-3.
increased cost in comparison to Conventional construction in concrete [3] C. Vieira, O projeto de uma casa humilde: num contexto de sensibilidade
and hollow brick is due to the Wooden roof solution. The double-wall ambiental, Escola de Arquitetura da Universidade do Minho, Guimarães, 2020
adobe walls present a low cost of construction, comparing it with the outubro deAvailable online, http://hdl.handle.net/1822/69246. accessed on 05/
07/2021.
other wall solutions, it turns to be the cheapest, however, the Ado­ [4] A. Passer, H. Kreiner, P. Maydl, Assessment of the environmental performance of
be+Wood solution ends up being the second most expensive essentially buildings: a critical evaluation of the influence of technical building equipment on
due to the cost of the roofing solution. residential buildings, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. (2012), https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11367-012-0435-6.
This research aimed to analyse the relation between environmental [5] REH - Portuguese Regulation for the Energy Performance of Housing Building,
impact and economic cost on a Case Study house. In this House, only the Decree-Law 101-D/2020 of 7th December, Portugal.
pollution generated by the transport of materials was considered, but [6] Directive (EU), /844 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May
2018 Amending Directive 2010/31/EU on the Energy Performance of Buildings
not the economic cost. It was pre-defined that only local materials would and Directive 2012/27/EU on Energy Efficiency, 2018.
be used in the Case Study, with a maximum distance of 50 km from the [7] ISO. ISO 14040, Environmental Management — Life cycle Assessment — Principles
site. The building material used in more quantity, Adobe, would be and Framework, International Organization for Standardization. ISO, Geneve,
2006.
manufactured in the site, manually and by hand, using the land [8] ISO. ISO 14044, Environmental Management — Life cycle Assessment —
extracted during the foundations execution phase. Although the eco­ Requirements and Guidelines, International Organization for Standardization. ISO,
nomic costs of transport were not accounted for, as this is usually Geneve, 2006.
[9] CEN. EN 15804, Sustainability of Construction Works - Environmental Product
already included in the final cost of the product, if it could be inde­
Declarations - Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products, CEN,
pendently accounted it would only benefit the Case Study solution. Brussels, 2012.
The simplifications and assumptions considered in this case study [10] CEN. EN 15978, Sustainability of Construction Works - Assessment of
analysis may led to limitations and potential uncertainties. The free Environmental Performance of Buildings - Calculation Method, CEN, Brussels,
2011.
accessible ICE database considered for assessing the EC of the envelope [11] R. Mateus, S. Neiva, L. Bragança, P. Mendonça, M. Macieira, Sustainability
materials in the case study was created from a large re-view of the assessment of an innovative lightweight building technology for partition walls –
literature, however it does not reflect the specificities of the case study Comparison with conventional technologies, Build. Environ. 67 (2013) 147–159,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.05.012. ISSN 0360-1323.
location and proposed materials in the Adobe+Wood building envelope [12] X Li, Y Zhu, Z. Zhang, An LCA- based environmental impact assessment model for
system, similarly for all comparison conventional building envelope construction process, Build. Environ. 45 (2010) 766–775.
alternatives. Use phase impacts were not evaluated, as well as end of life; [13] M.J. González, J.G. Navarro, Assessment of the decrease of CO2 emissions in the
construction field trough the selection of materials: practical case study of three
however, differences are expected to be limited, as the proposed and houses of low environmental impact, Build. Environ. 41 (7) (2005) 902–909.
reference envelope configurations should have similar energy perfor­ [14] Circular Ecology. Embodied Carbon - The ICE Database. Available online: htt
mances. End of life scenario will always be more advantageous for the p://www.circularecology.com/embodied-energy-and-carbon-footprint-database.
html (accessed on 06/07/2021).
proposed envelope solution, that presents the higher possible recycling [15] S.M. Khoshnava, R. Rostami, R. Mohamad Zin, D. Štreimikienė, A. Mardani,
rates, even easy reuse. This case study is focused on a specific house and M. Ismail, The role of green building materials in reducing environmental and
specific location, although results may not represent different building human health impacts, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17 (2020) 2589, https://
doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072589.
sizes and locations. The strategies proposed in this case study envelope
[16] D. Silveira, H. Varum, A. Costa, Rehabilitation of an important cultural and
design, identify improvement opportunities that can be easily imple­ architectural heritage: the traditional adobe constructions in Aveiro district, in:
mented on other single-family houses but also in diverse types of A. Kungolas, C.A. Brebbia, E. Beriatos (Eds.), Sustainable Development 2007,
housing buildings, however this last scenario was not evaluated. The WITPress, 2007, pp. 705–714. ISBN 978-1-84564-103-0, Carvoeiro, Algarve, 25 a
27 de Abril de 2007.
implementation of less, more natural, reused, and local materials in the [17] J.B. Pedro, Habitação em Portugal: Evolução e Tendências, LNEC, Lisboa, 2013, 12
external envelope of buildings, may be used to improve the circularity in de novembro.
construction sector, however the economic cost can still be reduced in [18] P. Mendonça, J.P. Couto, A.P. Reis, Economic and construction analysis of
lightweight membranes in housing in temperate climates, Environ. Eng. Manag. J.
order to be competitive with the conventional building solutions, 10 (10) (2011) 1485–1493.
namely for the external envelope. [19] P. Mendonça, Living under a second skin - Strategies for Environmental Impact
Reduction for Solar Passive Constructions in Temperate Climates (in Portuguese),
PhD Thesis in Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 2005.
[20] Harper, P. Our dependency on growth, like on concrete, must be abolished.
Declaration of Competing Interest Available online: https://www.dezeen.com/2019/09/25/oslo-architecture-tr
iennale-architecture-degrowth-phineas-harper/(accessed on 05/07/2021).
[21] V. Tavares, N. Soares, N. Raposo, P. Marques, F. Freire, Prefabricated versus
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial conventional construction: comparing life-cycle impacts of alternative structural
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence materials, J. Build. Eng. 41 (2021), 102705, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
the work reported in this paper. jobe.2021.102705. ISSN 2352-7102.
[22] F. Oliveira, P. Mendonça, J.P. Couto, A. Camões, Environmental impact and
comparative economic analysis among different building constructive systems used
Data availability in Portugal, WSEAS Energy Environ. Struct. Eng. 29 (2014).
[23] F. Oliveira, P. Mendonça, J.P. Couto, A. Camões, E. Silva, Comparative
environmental and economic analysis of South European building constructive
Data will be made available on request.
systems, WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 10 (2014) 509–528.
[24] H. Binici, O. Aksogan, M.N. Bodur, E. Akca, S. Kapur, Thermal isolation and
mechanical properties of fibre rein-forced mud bricks as wall materials, Construct.
Build. Mater. 21 (4) (2007) 901–906, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Acknowledgments conbuildmat.2005.11.004. ISSN 0950-0618. Available online:accessed on 06/07/
2021.
The Authors acknowledges the support from Project Lab2PT - [25] A. Hafner, S. Schäfer, Comparative LCA study of different timber and mineral
buildings and calculation method for substitution factors on building level,
Landscapes, Heritage and Territory laboratory - UIDB/04509/2020 J. Clean. Prod. 167 (2017) 630–642, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
through FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia. jclepro.2017.08.203. ISSN 0959-6526. Available online:accessed on 27/12/2021.
[26] A. Atmaca, N. Atmaca, Comparative life cycle energy and cost analysis of post-
disaster temporary housings, Appl. Energy 171 (2016) 429–443, https://doi.org/
References 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.058.
[27] C. Dara, C. Hachem-Vermette, G. Assefa, Life cycle assessment and life cycle
[1] D.L Meadows, D.R.J. Meadows, The Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update, 1st ed., costing of container-based single-family housing in Canada: a case study, Build.
Chelsea Green Publishing Company, USA, 2004, p. 22. Environ. 163 (2019), 106332, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.10633.