IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v12y2023i1p15-d1031164.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Ecological Footprint of Construction Materials—A Standardized Approach from Hungary

Author

Listed:
  • Cecília Szigeti

    (Centre of Excellence for Sustainability Impacts in Business and Society (CESIBUS), Budapest Business School, 1149 Budapest, Hungary
    Department of Management, Faculty of Finance and Accountancy, Budapest Business School, 1149 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Zoltán Major

    (Department of Transport Infrastructure and Water Resources Engineering, Faculty of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Transport Sciences, Széchenyi István University, 9026 Győr, Hungary)

  • Dániel Róbert Szabó

    (Department of International and Applied Economics, Kautz Gyula Economics Faculty, Széchenyi István University, 9026 Győr, Hungary)

  • Áron Szennay

    (Centre of Excellence for Sustainability Impacts in Business and Society (CESIBUS), Budapest Business School, 1149 Budapest, Hungary
    Department of Finance, Faculty of Finance and Accountancy, Budapest Business School, 1149 Budapest, Hungary)

Abstract

Due to the large volume and mass of materials used, the construction industry is one of the sectors with the highest environmental impact. However, to provide good quality, affordable, and low-energy housing, the business case must be maintained. Accordingly, we aimed to develop and test a calculator to measure the ecological footprint of the embodied carbon in materials used in construction projects in a standardized way, without the need for environmental or even civil engineering expertise, and thus in a way that is accessible to SMEs. The novelty of our research is that although there are calculators for measuring the environmental impact (e.g., carbon footprint) of the construction industry, and there is a methodology for calculating the ecological footprint of construction, there is no free, easy-to-use, online calculator for calculating the ecological footprint of embodied carbon in materials available to all enterprises. In other words, this approach extends our previously developed corporate ecological footprint calculator with the environmental impacts of material usage. The study summarises the baseline research for an ecological footprint calculator, tested on two new condominium buildings and the energy renovation of five condominium buildings, built with a prefabricated technology typical in Hungary and other post-socialist countries. Based on our results and in accordance with former literature sources, most of the ecological footprint of new construction projects is determined by materials with high mass and volume, in particular, concrete, steel, and masonry; so it is not necessary to take into account all construction materials in a calculator in a detailed way. We also conclude that renovation and ongoing maintenance, as well as preservation, are recommended for structurally sound buildings, as embodied carbon in materials in the case of an energy upgrade of an existing condominium building has an environmental impact of 0.3–0.8 global hectares per dwelling, depending on the technical content, while in the construction of a new building, this value is between 10.49–14.22 global hectares. Our results can help investors and clients in their decisions, and policymakers in determining urban development directions.

Suggested Citation

  • Cecília Szigeti & Zoltán Major & Dániel Róbert Szabó & Áron Szennay, 2023. "The Ecological Footprint of Construction Materials—A Standardized Approach from Hungary," Resources, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:15-:d:1031164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/12/1/15/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/12/1/15/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Áron Szennay & Cecília Szigeti & Judit Beke & László Radácsi, 2021. "Ecological Footprint as an Indicator of Corporate Environmental Performance—Empirical Evidence from Hungarian SMEs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Bonnie McBain & Manfred Lenzen & Glenn Albrecht & Mathis Wackernagel, 2018. "Building Robust Housing Sector Policy Using the Ecological Footprint," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Simon L. Lewis & Mark A. Maslin, 2015. "Defining the Anthropocene," Nature, Nature, vol. 519(7542), pages 171-180, March.
    4. Adriano Souza Leão & Monique Cerqueira Araujo & Thiago Barbosa de Jesus & Edna dos Santos Almeida, 2022. "Is the Soil-Cement Brick an Ecological Brick? An Analysis of the Life Cycle Environmental and Energy Performance of Masonry Walls," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-16, October.
    5. Zhen Liu & Peixuan Li & Fenghong Wang & Mohamed Osmani & Peter Demian, 2022. "Building Information Modeling (BIM) Driven Carbon Emission Reduction Research: A 14-Year Bibliometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-26, October.
    6. Mathis Wackernagel & David Lin & Mikel Evans & Laurel Hanscom & Peter Raven, 2019. "Defying the Footprint Oracle: Implications of Country Resource Trends," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-21, April.
    7. María Rocío Ruiz-Pérez & Mª Desirée Alba-Rodríguez & Raúl Castaño-Rosa & Jaime Solís-Guzmán & Madelyn Marrero, 2019. "HEREVEA Tool for Economic and Environmental Impact Evaluation for Sustainable Planning Policy in Housing Renovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-20, May.
    8. David Lin & Laurel Hanscom & Adeline Murthy & Alessandro Galli & Mikel Evans & Evan Neill & Maria Serena Mancini & Jon Martindill & Fatime-Zahra Medouar & Shiyu Huang & Mathis Wackernagel, 2018. "Ecological Footprint Accounting for Countries: Updates and Results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-22, September.
    9. Emily Elhacham & Liad Ben-Uri & Jonathan Grozovski & Yinon M. Bar-On & Ron Milo, 2020. "Global human-made mass exceeds all living biomass," Nature, Nature, vol. 588(7838), pages 442-444, December.
    10. Ashok Kumar & Pardeep Singh & Nishant Raj Kapoor & Chandan Swaroop Meena & Kshitij Jain & Kishor S. Kulkarni & Raffaello Cozzolino, 2021. "Ecological Footprint of Residential Buildings in Composite Climate of India—A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-25, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mehmet Ünal & Fatma Ünal, 2022. "Ecological Footprint Reduction Behaviors of Individuals in Turkey in the Context of Ecological Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Tironi, Martín & Rivera Lisboa, Diego Ignacio, 2023. "Artificial intelligence in the new forms of environmental governance in the Chilean State: Towards an eco-algorithmic governance," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    3. Seeram Ramakrishna & Wayne Hu & Rajan Jose, 2023. "Sustainability in Numbers by Data Analytics," Circular Economy and Sustainability,, Springer.
    4. Yung-Jaan Lee, 2022. "Hybrid Ecological Footprint of Taipei," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Kęstutis Biekša & Violeta Valiulė & Ligita Šimanskienė & Raffaele Silvestri, 2022. "Assessment of Sustainable Economic Development in the EU Countries with Reference to the SDGs and Environmental Footprint Indices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-18, September.
    6. Feng, Rundong & Wang, Kaiyong, 2022. "The direct and lag effects of administrative division adjustment on urban expansion patterns in Chinese mega-urban agglomerations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    7. Jennifer B Tennessen & Marla M Holt & Brianna M Wright & M Bradley Hanson & Candice K Emmons & Deborah A Giles & Jeffrey T Hogan & Sheila J Thornton & Volker B Deecke, 2023. "Divergent foraging strategies between populations of sympatric matrilineal killer whales," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(3), pages 373-386.
    8. Huston, Simon, 2020. "Academic letter on French Indochina War: metaphors for strategic insight," OSF Preprints 2p9by, Center for Open Science.
    9. Felipe Vásquez & Gibran Vita & Daniel B. Müller, 2018. "Food Security for an Aging and Heavier Population," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    10. Marco Filippo Torchio & Umberto Lucia & Giulia Grisolia, 2020. "Economic and Human Features for Energy and Environmental Indicators: A Tool to Assess Countries’ Progress towards Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-19, November.
    11. Joseph Ching & Mizuo Kajino, 2020. "Rethinking Air Quality and Climate Change after COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-11, July.
    12. Qiong Chen & Hongyu Zhang & Yui-Yip Lau & Tianni Wang & Wen Wang & Guangsheng Zhang, 2023. "Climate Change, Carbon Peaks, and Carbon Neutralization: A Bibliometric Study from 2006 to 2023," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-12, March.
    13. Ove Eriksson, 2016. "Historical and Current Niche Construction in an Anthropogenic Biome: Old Cultural Landscapes in Southern Scandinavia," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-17, November.
    14. Kęstutis Biekša & Aurelija Zonienė & Violeta Valiulė, 2021. "Sustainable Investment—A Solution to Reduce Environmental Footprint," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-15, May.
    15. Rachel Mazac & Hanna L. Tuomisto, 2020. "The Post-Anthropocene Diet: Navigating Future Diets for Sustainable Food Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-15, March.
    16. Mingyue Yang & Ningyin Liu & Xinjing Wang & Yan Zhang, 2023. "Chinese cities exhibit diverse allometric growth patterns in material metabolism," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(6), pages 1626-1638, December.
    17. Li, Xiaoliang & Wu, Kening & Yang, Qijun & Hao, Shiheng & Feng, Zhe & Ma, Jinliang, 2023. "Quantitative assessment of cultivated land use intensity in Heilongjiang Province, China, 2001–2015," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    18. Feng Kong & Shao Sun, 2021. "Better Understanding the Catastrophe Risk in Interconnection and Comprehensive Disaster Risk Defense Capability, with Special Reference to China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-11, February.
    19. Stefano Bianchini & Giacomo Damioli & Claudia Ghisetti, 2023. "The environmental effects of the “twin” green and digital transition in European regions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(4), pages 877-918, April.
    20. Eva Michaeli & Vladimír Solár & Matúš Maxin & Jozef Vilček & Martin Boltižiar, 2021. "The Nature of the Technosols on the Waste from Nickel Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:15-:d:1031164. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.