Abstract
This chapter addresses the trend we are witnessing today, which is being observed in people’s efforts to return from the impersonal and restrictive conditions of prefabricated houses to the more natural and relaxed conditions of family homes. New approaches to urbanization in the context of urban sustainability can be characterized by the use of innovative technologies and energy-efficient and environmentally friendly building materials. Companies have fundamentally responded to this trend and met demand by offering a wide range of solutions. In addition to traditional and well-established building materials (brick, concrete), including wood, companies are also introducing modern, innovative and viable building alternatives. Modern construction methods (MMC), to which modern wood-based houses belong, support the idea and application of environmentally and energy-efficient buildings. Just as the construction process itself contributes significantly to the depletion of natural resources, the production of building materials contributes to significant environmental pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (especially CO2). When assessing the sustainability of construction projects, the use of methodologies that assess sustainability criteria throughout the product is increasingly required. life cycle. For the presented research of suburban housing clusters intended as family houses, a real construction of a family house realized by means of a modern prefabricated construction system based on wood was selected. To compare the modern method of wood-based construction, an alternative to the building model based on a traditional masonry construction system was created. The main goal of this research was to analyse selected building variants in terms of environmental and economic sustainability characteristics, as part of a broader assessment of sustainability, using life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) methodologies within established assessment thresholds. Part of the aim of this research was to point out ways of applying LCA and LCC assessment methodologies, for example, in decision-making processes included in alternative investment strategies for the construction of urban clusters in the context of sustainability.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Afshari, A., Nikolopoulou, C., Martin, M.: Life-cycle analysis of building retrofits at the urban scale—a case study in United Arab Emirates. Sustainability. 6, 453–473 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3390/su6010453
Almusaed, A., Almssad, A.: Building materials in eco-energy houses from Iraq and Iran. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2, 42–54 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2015.02.001
Bhochhibhoya, S., Pizzol, M., Achten, W.M.J., Maskey, R.K., Zanetti, M., Cavalli, R.: Comparative life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of lodging in the Himalaya. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 1851–1863 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1212-8
Blengini, G.A., Di Carlo, T.: The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and materials in the LCA of low energy buildings. Energ. Buildings. 42, 869–880 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.12.009
Carter, T., Keeler, A.: Life-cycle cost–benefit analysis of extensive vegetated roof systems. J. Environ. Manag. 87, 350–363 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.024
Dwaikata, L.N., Ali, K.N.: Green buildings life cycle cost analysis and life cycle budget development: practical applications. J. Build. Eng. 18, 303–311 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.03.015
Glasare, G.; Haglund, P.: Climate Impacts of Wood vs. Non Wood Buildings; Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting: Stockholm, Sweden (2016); ISBN 978-91-7585-377-2
Goldstein, B., Eriksson, A.H.: Livscykelkostnader-Till Vilken Nytta för Miljön och Plånboken? Nordiska Ministerrådet, Köpenhamn, Denmark (2010)
Gustavsson, L., Sathre, R.: Variability in energy and carbon dioxide balances of wood and concrete building materials. Build. Environ. 41, 940–951 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.04.008
Hasan, A.: Optimizing insulation thickness for buildings using life cycle cost. Appl. Energy. 63, 115–124 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-2619(99)00023-9
Majumdar, D., Majhi, B.J., Dutta, A., Mandal, R., Jash, T.: Study on possible economic and environmental impacts of electric vehicle infrastructure in public road transport in Kolkata. Clean Technol. Environ. 17, 1093–1101 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-0868-7
Marszal, A.J., Heiselberg, P.: Life cycle cost analysis of a multi-storey residential net zero energy building in Denmark. Energy. 36, 5600–5609 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.07.010
Morel, J.C., Mesbah, A., Oggero, M., Walker, P.: Building houses with local materials: means to drastically reduce the environmental impact of construction. Build. Environ. 36, 1119–1126 (2001)
Pajchrowski, G., Noskowiak, A., Lewandowska, A., Strykowski, W.: Wood as a building material in the light of environmental assessment of full life cycle of four buildings. Constr. Build. Mater. 52, 428–436 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.066
Panepinto, D., Brizio, E., Genon, G.: Atmospheric pollutants and air quality effects: limitation costs and environmental advantages (a cost-benefit approach). Clean Technol, Environ. 16, 1805–1813 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-0727-6
Russell-Smith, S.V., Lepech, M.D.: Cradle-to-gate sustainable target value design: integrating life cycle assessment and construction management for buildings. JCP. 100, 107–115 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.044
Santi, S., Pierobon, F., Corradini, G., Cavalli, R., Zanetti, M.: Massive wood material for sustainable building design: the Massiv-Holz-Mauer wall system. J. Wood Sci. 62, 416–428 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-016-1570-7
Schade, J.: Life cycle cost calculation models for buildings. In Proceedings of 4th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation: Development Processes in Construction Mangement, Luleå Tekniska Universitet, Luleå, Sweden, 14–15 (June 2007)
Silvestre, J.D., Brito, J., Pinheiro, M.D.: From the new European standards to an environmental, energy and economic assessment of building assemblies from cradle-to-cradle (3E-C2C). Energ. Buildings. 64, 199–208 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.05.001
Toosi, H.A., Balador, Z., Gjerde, M., Vakili-Ardebili, A.: A life Cycle Cost Analysis and Environmental Assessment on the Photovoltaic System in Buildings: Two Case Studies in Iran. J. Clean Energy Technol. 6, 134–138 (2018). https://doi.org/10.18178/jocet.2018.6.2.448
Upton, B., Miner, R., Spinney, M., Heath, L.S.: The greenhouse gas and energy impacts of using wood instead of alternatives in residential construction in the United States. Biomass Bioenergy. 32, 1–10 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.07.001
Ximenes, A.F., Grant, T.: Quantifying the greenhouse benefits of the use of wood products in two popular house designs in Sydney, Australia. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 891–908 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0533-5
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Švajlenka, J., Kozlovská, M. (2022). Analysis and Evaluation of a Selected Modern Method of Wood-Based Construction in Comparison with the Traditional Construction System of Construction in the Context of Sustainability and Efficiency: A Case Study. In: Efficient and Sustainable Wood-based Constructions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87575-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87575-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-87574-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-87575-6
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)