The construction industry is at a turning point: 37 percent of global CO2 emissions are related to energy and operational processes in the construction sector. The industry must adapt to both address climate change and find sustainable solutions that meet the needs of future generations. In this race for sustainable construction, not only environmental aspects are important, but also the social impact – from the workforce on the construction site to the use by the community. Logistics halls are an example of these challenges and opportunities.
To this end, evolutiq Impact Advisory, together with the Institute for Sustainability in Construction at RWTH Aachen University, has developed guidelines for assessing the ecological and social sustainability of logistics halls. The results have now been published in the journal “Developments in the Built Environment“.
Thinking about sustainability holistically: Lifecycle-based evaluation of logistics halls
The goal must be to integrate a holistic, sustainable perspective in all phases of the life cycle of logistics halls. This is not only about economic aspects, but also about taking into account the environmental and social impact at every stage. It is important to determine the relevant sustainability aspects and indicators in order to achieve an optimal environmental and social balance in the evaluation of such halls.
A helpful tool for this is the lifecycle-based sustainability assessment, which enables a comprehensive understanding of the sustainability of a product or project. This method takes into account not only potential environmental impacts, but also social and economic aspects throughout the life cycle.
The assessment of sustainability consists of three main elements. First, the so-called life cycle assessment is used to assess the potential environmental impacts that arise during the life cycle of a product. These include the impact on climate change, acidification potential, eutrophication, ecotoxicity and water consumption.
The second element is the economic evaluation of the entire cost of a product, from acquisition to possession and disposal. This analysis provides valuable information for decision-making at every stage of a product’s lifecycle.
Finally, a social impact analysis is also carried out. This assessment examines both positive and negative social impacts, such as working conditions, workers’ health and safety, and thus allows for a more comprehensive view of a project’s sustainability. Despite the lack of standardisation, established guidelines already provide a good basis for carrying out this social assessment.
Relieving the burden on the environment, strengthening social responsibility
Logistics halls have a significant impact on the environment, especially through the use of building materials such as concrete, which leads to high CO2 emissions. Choosing concrete with higher strength, such as C30/37, causes about 20% more emissions compared to weaker grades such as C25/30 (although the stronger grade is necessary for certain construction requirements). The use of more environmentally friendly concrete mixtures or recycled materials could potentially relieve the climate. The recycling of building materials after the use of the buildings also plays an important role in more sustainable construction.
In addition to environmental pollution, social aspects such as the health and safety of employees in logistics halls are also crucial. An analysis of primary data such as risk assessments and certifications indicates that there are no significant hazards in the use phase, although some details such as the provision of personal protective equipment should be examined more closely. Overall, it can be seen that both ecological and social sustainability criteria should be given greater consideration in the planning and operation of logistics halls in order to reduce environmental pollution and minimise social risks.
The full article entitled “Sustainability assessment of logistics halls” in the journal “Developments in the Built Environment” can be read here .
Further authors: Dr. Patrick Greß
