Advertisement

Life cycle assessment of granite application in sidewalks

  • Joan-Manuel F. MendozaEmail author
  • Jordi Oliver-Solà
  • Xavier Gabarrell
  • Alejandro Josa
  • Joan Rieradevall
BUILDINGS AND BUILDING MATERIALS

Abstract

Purpose

Sidewalks are important built areas for promoting environmental sustainability in cities since they support walking as a zero emission form of transportation contributing to protect the environment and the health of individuals. However, sidewalk management is typically focused on assessing their suitability for users without applying any environmental criteria on the infrastructure design. The paper aims to quantify the environmental impact that sidewalks can contribute to the urban space if no environmental criteria are applied in sidewalk design.

Methods

This study focuses on the environmental assessment of a very common sidewalk system found in cities to support pedestrian and light motorized traffic for over 45 years. The constructive solution consists of granite slabs (top layer) fixed on a mortar layer (3-cm thick) that is settled on a base of concrete (15-cm thick). The life cycle methodology was employed to conduct the environmental assessment of the system. The results are compared with the environmental outcomes of a sidewalk system that has the same function but is paved with concrete slabs to identify the environmentally optimal sidewalk design. The impact assessment method was CML Baseline 2001, and the inventory data were compiled from manufacturers associations, local authorities, and literature review.

Results and discussion

Construction materials have the highest environmental impact (48–87%) in the sidewalk life cycle, where the granite top layer is the first contributor, although the amount of granite in the sidewalk system represents the 30% of the total weight of the construction materials used. A granite sidewalk has from 25% to 140% higher impact than a concrete one. The energy required to produce slabs is the key factor that characterizes the environmental impact of granite. Electricity and diesel consumption in stone cutting and moving represent over the 70% of the environmental burden of granite. The transportation of granite slabs is also relevant to the environmental impact. The use of imported granite could account for up to 76–177% of the total environmental impact of the sidewalk life cycle.

Conclusions

Although granite is a natural material, using granite slabs as flooring material is not an environmentally suitable alternative over using concrete ones for paving sidewalks. The results have shown that if no environmental criteria are applied during sidewalk design and management, urban planners may be unconsciously contributing to an important environmental burden on the built environment. The ecodesign is a strategic opportunity to promote environmentally suitable urban infrastructures that contribute to promote urban sustainability in cities.

Recommendations

Energy efficiency techniques, water management, and well-considered transportation management should be developed and implemented in the granite industry to minimize the environmental impact of using it for paving. Additionally, further research is needed to quantify the environmental performance of other construction materials used in sidewalk construction in order to identify the best environmental alternatives and design improvements by optimizing the use of materials to the sidewalks functions.

Keywords

City Granite Concrete LCA Pavement Sidewalks Slabs Sustainability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Carlos Fuentes and Adolf Creus from the Department of Urban Planning at the City Council of Barcelona as well as Santiago Calvo from Ciments Molins Group for their contributions to this study. Joan Manuel Fernández Mendoza also acknowledges the Department of Education, Universities and Research of the Basque Government for the financial support through the training program for researchers.

References

  1. Al-Hagla K (2008) Towards a sustainable neighborhood: the role of open spaces. Int J Archit Res 2(2):162–177Google Scholar
  2. Balocco C, Papeschi S, Grazzini G, Basosi R (2004) Using exergy to analyze the sustainability of an urban area. J Ecol Econ 48:231–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton H, Daniels I, Davis G, Guise R (1996) Going green by design. Sustain Urban Des 1:57Google Scholar
  4. Campbell K (2001) Rethinking open space, open space provision and management: a way forward. Report presented by Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  5. CEDEX (2009) La Ciudad Paseable: recomendaciones para la consideración de los peatones en planeamiento, el diseño urbano y la arquitectura. ISBN 978-84-7790-509-7. Centro de Estudios y Experimentación de Obras Públicas, Ministerio de Fomento y Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino. Gobierno de España, MadridGoogle Scholar
  6. CEMBUREAU, BIBM, EFCA, ERMCO, EUROFER, UEPG (2003) EcoConcrete software tool. CEMBUREAU, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. CR (2009) General reporting, protocol 1.1. Updates and clarifications. The climate registry. Los Angeles, California. http://www.theclimateregistry.org/. Accessed Sept 2010
  8. Decker EH, Elliott S, Smith FA, Blake DR, Rowland FS (2000) Energy and material flow through the urban ecosystem. Annu Rev Energy Environ 25:685–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ecoinvent (2006) The life cycle inventory data version 1.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. http://www.ecoinvent.ch/. Accessed June 2010
  10. Emery J, Crump C, Bors P (2003) Reliability and validity of two instruments designed to assess the walking and bicycling suitability of sidewalks and roads. Am J Health Promotion 18(1):38–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engel-Yan J, Kennedy C, Saiz S, Pressnail K (2005) Toward sustainable neighborhoods: the need to consider infrastructure interactions. Can J Civ Engineering 32(1):45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FDP (2005) Manual del Granito. Federación Española de la Piedra Natural (FDP). Madrid, http://www.fdp.es/. Accessed April 2010
  13. Gasol CM, Farreny R, Gabarrell X, Rieradevall J (2008) Life cycle assessment comparison among different reuse intensities for industrial wooden containers. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:421–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gertler MS (2004) Creative cities: what are they for, how do they work, and how do we build them? Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc. (CPRN). Background Paper F/48 Family Network. http://www.cprn.org. Accessed April 2010
  15. GRI (1999) Handbook for estimating combustion emissions from the operation and construction of Canadian natural gas systems. Prepared for GRI Canada by Picard DJ, Stribrny M, Harrison MR of Clearstone Engineering Ltd., Enerco Engineering Ltd. and Radian InternationalGoogle Scholar
  16. Guinée JB (ed), Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn H, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ, Lindeijer E, Roorda AAH, Weidema BP (2001) Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO standards. Parts 1 and 2. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) and Centre of Environmental Science (CML), Den Haag and Leiden, The Netherlands (Guinée JB, final editor)Google Scholar
  17. Häkkinen T, Mäkelä K (1996) Environmental adaptation of concrete. Environmental impact of concrete and asphalt pavements. VTT, Tiedotteita-Meddelanden-research-notes 1752. Technology Research Centre of FinlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Hendrickson C, Horvath A (2000) Resource, use and environmental emissions of U.S. construction sectors. J Constr Eng M ASCE 126(1):38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. PE International (2008) GaBi software 4.3, released on July 2008. http://www.pe-international.com. Accessed June 2010
  20. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Standard 14040:2006(E). International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  21. ITeC (2010) Institut de Tecnologia de la Construcciò de Catalunya. Banco de datos BEDEC. http://www.itec.es/nouBedec.e/bedec.aspx. Accessed September 2010
  22. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Josa A, Aguado A, Gettu R (2001) Construcción y medio ambiente. 2a parte: Comportamiento medioambiental de productos con base cemento. Aplicación a pavimentos de hormigón. Cemento Hormigón no. 828, pp 985–1004Google Scholar
  24. Josa A, Aguado A, Heino A, Byars E, Cardim A (2004) Comparative analysis of available life cycle inventories of cement in the EU. Cement Concrete Res 34(8):1313–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marshall JD (2008) Energy-efficient urban form. Environ Sci Technol 42(9):3133–3137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mateo-Babiano I, Hitoshi I (2005) Theoretical discourse on sustainable space design: towards creating and sustaining effective sidewalks. Bus Strat Env 14:300–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. NSC (2009) A life-cycle inventory of granite dimension stone quarrying and processing. Version 2. A report prepared by the Centre of Clean Products of the University of Tennessee for The Natural Stone Council (NSC)Google Scholar
  28. Oliver-Solà J (2009) Industrial ecology as a discipline for the analysis and design of sustainable urban settlements. Doctoral thesis. ISBN 978-84-693-2059-4Google Scholar
  29. Oliver-Solà J, Josa A, Rieradevall J, Gabarrell X (2009) Environmental optimization of concrete sidewalks in urban areas. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:302–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. OMPN (2009) Informe sectorial de la piedra natural 2008, Ámbito Nacional. Observatorio del Mercado de la Piedra Natural. Instituto Tecnológico de la Construcción (AIDICO)Google Scholar
  31. Pauleit S, Duhme F (2000) Assessing the environmental performance of land cover types for urban planning. Landsc Urban Plan 52:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. PBSME (2010) Pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility in Europe. International Technology Scanning Program in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and the National Cooperative Highway Research ProgramGoogle Scholar
  33. PMP (2002) Pedestrian master plan. The City of Oakland. Part of the land use and transportation element of the City of Oakland’s general planGoogle Scholar
  34. PMUB (2006) Pla de Mobilitat Urbana de la Ciutat de Barcelona 2006–2018. Ayuntamiento de BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  35. Rajendran S, Gambatese JA (2007) Solid waste generation in asphalt and reinforced concrete roadway life cycles. J Infrastruct Syst 13(2):88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stripple H (2005) Life cycle assessment of road: a pilot study for inventory analysis. Report for the Swedish national road administration. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute LtdGoogle Scholar
  37. UNE-EN 12670 (2003) Natural stone—terminology. Natural Stone for Construction. AEN/CTN 22—Mining and Explosives CommitteeGoogle Scholar
  38. UN-HABITAT (2010) A new chapter in urban development. Urban World 2(2):6Google Scholar
  39. UNPD (2007) World urbanization prospects: The 2007 revision, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. U.S. EIA (1998) Natural Gas 1998: Issues and Trends. United States Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/natural_gas_1998_issues_and_trends/it98.html. Accessed Sept 2010
  41. van Oers L, Koning A, Guinée JB, Huppes G (2002) Abiotic resource depletion in LCA. Improving characterisation factors for abiotic resource depletion as recommended in the new Dutch LCA Handbook. Road and Hydraulic Engineering Institute. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. Directoraat-Generaal RijkswaterstaatGoogle Scholar
  42. WEO (2009) World Energy Outlook 2009. International Energy Agency and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD/IEA). ISBN: 978-92-64-06130-9Google Scholar
  43. WPPP (2002) Wisconsin pedestrian policy plan 2020. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Investment Management, Bureau of Planning. Citizens Advisory CommitteeGoogle Scholar
  44. Zapata P, Gambatese JA (2005) Energy consumption of asphalt and reinforced concrete pavement materials and construction. J Infrastruct Syst 11(1):9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joan-Manuel F. Mendoza
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jordi Oliver-Solà
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xavier Gabarrell
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Alejandro Josa
    • 4
    • 5
  • Joan Rieradevall
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Sostenipra (ICTA-IRTA-Inèdit), Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), School of Engineering (EE)Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB)BarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Inèdit Innovació SLUAB Research ParkCabrils, BarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering (EE)Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB)BarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Department of Geotechnical Engineering and Geosciences, School of Civil Engineering (ETSECCPB)Technical University of Catalonia—Barcelona Tech (UPC)BarcelonaSpain
  5. 5.Institute of Sustainability (IS.UPC)Technical University of Catalonia-Barcelona Tech, (UPC)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations