Under the patronage of:

Journal Metrics


Impact factor (2022): 2.1

5.4
2023CiteScore
 
75th percentile
Powered by  Scopus


More about CiteScore


Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 0.474


SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.377

 
 

Improving the buildings' sustainability through combined matrix assessment of embodied energy, water, and carbon: case of conventional houses, Jammu-India

Original scientific paper

Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems
Volume 12, Issue 2, June 2024, 1120488
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13044/j.sdewes.d12.0488
Anoop Kumar Sharma1 , Prabhjot Singh Chani2
1 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (IIT)-ROORKEE, INDIA, Roorkee, India
2 Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Roorkee, India

Abstract

The study attempts the comparatives of embodied energy, water, and carbon parameters in the cradle-to-gate phase of building construction for conventional houses in Jammu, India. Besides relying on hybrid material coefficients and field investigations-based materials database, the study adopts a general life cycle assessment framework. Descriptive statistics and regression techniques aid in meeting the findings. A strong interrelation between embodied energy and carbon, but a considerably weak embodied water-to-energy or embodied water-to-carbon relationship emerges. The top embodied energy and carbon-impacting materials (like brick) retard significantly in embodied water impacts, while steel deserves less attention than sand, aggregates, and cement considering all three parameters together. Therefore, a new dimension to appropriately using building materials and construction technologies looms by outlining a broad materials palette. The results call for a differing embodied water optimisation approach to embodied energy or carbon-pertaining ones. The construction players receive a new insight towards a sustainable building approach. 

Keywords: Embodied energy; Embodied water; Embodied carbon; Sustainable buildings; Energy-water-carbon nexus

Creative Commons License
Views (in 2025): 145 | Downloads (in 2025): 33
Total views: 1899 | Total downloads: 426
INTRODUCTION

The quest for rational energy use and related environmental impacts has been visible for at least three decades. However, the freshwater crisis is also among the top agendas in the current world order. Many building rating systems and sustainable development goals (SDGs) are associated with optimising energy or water consumption, given the fact that one-third of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [1] and 50% of energy [2] consumed globally are attributed to buildings, their environmental impacts need serious checks. Attention is also required because buildings consume 16% of worldwide water [3]. So, the sustainability concept owes a lot to the global construction industry. Proponents realise the link of water, energy and carbon emissions towards regional sustainable development of freshwater availability, energy security and global warming mitigation [4]. Indeed, the comprehension of the water-energy-carbon link nudges the policymakers for socio-economic sustainability [5]. Besides energy priority for decades, water use in various activities, including construction, has started to seek attention. Construction is the most water-consuming sector after agriculture [6], and the Indian construction sector is perhaps the largest globally [7]. India needs to catch up in water and land resources and, hence, the energy to cater for a staggering 17% of the global population proportion [8]. The Indian construction sector accounts for 30% of the total country’s CO2 (GHG) emissions and 40% of energy consumption [9]. Conventional Indian houses are unsustainable and represent irresponsible resource consumption [10]. A sustainable building relies on less water and energy, emits fewer greenhouse gases (GHG), and uses materials more efficiently, while waste production is efficient for conventional buildings’ LC [11]. The established research on embodied energy (EE) in buildings has helped to have more energy-efficient buildings in recent years [12]. The strong relationship of EE with carbon emissions [13] means that carbon emissions from building construction have also been mitigated to a specific effect. However, simultaneous checks on embodied water (EW) parameters still need to be present in previous attempts, and the holistic Sustainable Built Environment (SBE) that is envisioned needs to be improved [14]. The scientific community is looking back at vernacular architecture to conserve water consumption in building construction [15]. The time has come to consider drinking water consumption assessment and reduction due to on-site construction personnel [16]. So, introspection in Indian houses involving EW parameters alongside conventionally taken EE or carbon emissions towards SBE is worthy.

Previous research

The water embodied in materials through production, extraction and manufacturing of materials is known as indirect virtual water (VW) or materials embodied water (EW) [17]. Water footprint (WF) assessment, in addition, includes green water (stored in plants and soil) and grey water (polluted water). Stand-out Indian [18] or the Australian studies of 2004 [19], 2007 [20] and 2011 [21], along with a few other global studies from Spain [22] and Iran [23], reveal that VW or blue WF or total EW terms are inter-changeable, with supportive system boundary definition. Australia kickstarted the EW research in 2004. The first Indian study by Bardhan [17] and her follow-up investigation in 2016 [24], alongside a hotel-based Indian case [25] and the much-improvised 2022 Indian study [10], computed EW, including direct water, in the range of 16.27−27.6 kL/m2. Primarily, concrete and steel are EW-intensive materials [26]. Indian constructions are high on EW [14]. EW studies require enhanced explorations to contribute to environmental sustainability and water scarcity [22].

Like water, energy use in the building is attributed for almost its entire life till demolition. It is similarly composed of direct and indirect energy, as in EW definitions [27]. On a similar pattern, embodied carbon (EC) relates to material consumption, construction, and operational phases besides the demolition stage of building LC. Materials production mainly contributes to EE and GHG (EC) [28]. The phase of 2000−2017 sees a rapid increase in dwellings’ floor area but a minimal reduction in materials energy intensity [29]. Starting from the 2003 situation [30], Indian studies by Ramesh et al. [31], Shukla et al. [32], and the 2021 investigation by Vengala et al. [33] find EE in the 1610−7350 MJ/m2 range for different buildings and raise the bar of local manufacturing, materials, and construction techniques in optimising EE. The 13.9 GJ/m2 value shows the EE-intensive nature of UAE constructions in a study [34] based on the Australian EPiC database and material quantities to report initial EE (including the construction phase). EE predominantly contributes to LC energy; however, construction technologies and building materials innovations report EE cutting up to 62% [35]. Massively increasing Indian building stock accounts for 40% of the country’s electrical energy consumption [36]. A 2022 study emphasises the role of innovative construction practices for net zero buildings besides achieving SDGs through operational energy (OE) and emissions reduction [37].

Environment impacts, or energy issues of construction, are vastly covered in the research compared to EW [38]. A cradle-to-grave LCA study in Spain finds that the construction/renovation stage (60%) and use phase (40%) of residential buildings are environmentally impacting [39]. Including water consumed in electricity production is advocated in assessing buildings EW [40]. Bringing more renewables through international collaborations of wind-solar energy is a consolidating hope [41]. Table 1 highlights most of the existing scientific contributions specific to the construction sector at the building scale or urban level, highlighting interrelationships among two or all three of EW, EE, or EC parameters.

Construction sector-specific studies covering EW-EE or EW-EE-EC nexus

Country of study (Year) Source Parameters Methodology/Remarks
Spain (2022) [48] EW, EC Research survey, environmental, and economic data. Sustainability decision-making (reducing EC, EW) is achieved by identifying and adjusting impacting building materials and machinery.
Australia (2022) [49] EW, EE, EC QGIS. Direct interrelationship between the three parameters. Diverse residential constructions and efficient materials are required.
USA (2023) [40] EW, EE I-O method. 2.5%−31.2% in the share of EREW in total EW of construction materials. EW vis-à-vis energy use is vital towards achieving a truly sustainable built environment.
India (2024) [50] EW, EE Site-based. Global databases are fine for initiating EW studies, irrespective of regional contexts. Quantifications may differ depending on the database use; however, the chronology of top impacts remains similar. EW and EE have an inverse relationship concerning material consumption scenarios in conventional Indian houses. An EW conserving approach can also be a fitting EE solution if a material is thoughtfully selected during the design phase.
USA (2022) [42] EW, EE I-O-based hybrid method. EW and EE are weakly correlated, but EREW and EE are strongly correlated. An energy-carbon-water nexus perspective is required, rather than an energy component in isolation, to see the environmental impacts of construction.
UK (2021) [14] EW, EE, EC I-O methodology. There is no correlation between the water footprint and the construction sector’s energy or carbon footprints.
USA (2023) [44], [51] EW, EE, EC A macro-economic model based on I-O methodology. The EE is near perfect and positively correlated with EW. A decrease in EE use may not help decrease the majority of EW. Saving just EE may only help conserve 13%−16% of EW. Buildings’ environmental embodied impacts should be assessed through the energy-carbon-water nexus perspective.
India (2016) [52] EW Experiment based. A significant EW saving but not so much EE or carbon emissions saving by using gypsum plaster concerning conventional sand-cement plaster. So, EW and EE are not strongly correlated.
Iran (2019) [23] EW Process-based LCA. Construction-specific VW supply and consumption involves the dominant share of energy and GHG emissions. The EW−EE relationship still needs more concrete evidence.
Saudi Arabia (2019) [53] EW Overview study. Popular concepts-green and zero-energy buildings strive to save water and energy. Architects, town planners, and engineers must consider combining EW and EE in new buildings.
Spain (2018) [54] Energy, water, and carbon LCA method. The operation and maintenance building phase is covered. Renewable heating and lighting are emphasised in recommendations towards decreasing the environmental impacts of case buildings.

As Table 1 outlines, a fragile EEEW relationship [42], while a positive EEEC (GHG) emission relationship is preliminary predicted [13]. A USA research team performed several scientific investigations based on the I-O model in 2022−2024 [42]-[44], highlighting the positive correlation between EE and EW while meticulously highlighting that energy-specific measures do not considerably control EW. The matter of energy-water dependency deserves profound insight due to feeble evidence [23]. The inter-dependency of EW and EE is anticipated, and the energy-water nexus perspective is crucial to evaluating resource consumption and the environmental impacts of buildings [42]. A total void exists in Indian-specific studies. An Indian scholar [45] sees the worth of energy-water linkage in building regulations and fewer regulations dealing with the operational phase of buildings. Non-compliance with building regulations is common [46], especially for conventional Indian stand-alone houses [10]. A construction sector-specific study [14] involving many developed and developing economies finds no notable correlation between water, energy and (GHG) carbon dioxide (CO2) footprints but hints at an energy-CO2 correlation. An Indian study [47] covering cradle-to-site finds a 90% share in buildings’ carbon footprint due to cement, brick, and steel, with cement alone contributing 60%. It finds high relevance of materials embodied energy for the carbon footprint of buildings and calls for pertinent material selection in the design phase.

Prolonged ignorance towards significant water impacts in construction exists due to increased focus on energy or CO2 (GHG) only. A city-level nexus-based review study [4] finds increased significance in the ‘energy-water’ nexus approach rather than including carbon. While the proponents [65], [56] argue for a combined consideration of EE and EW for buildings, studies must indicate the EW, EC, and EE relationship at the building level [44]. A study [54] involving two school buildings seeks energy, water, and carbon footprints in Spain. However, the operation and maintenance phase is included rather than embodied. Studies by USA scholars [44], [51] seek EC, EE and EW assessment for four university buildings based on the I-‍O model of a developed economy of the USA. The same scholars advance to intervene in the Architecture plus design (A+D) of urban buildings through the impact of surface aspect ratio on the three embodied parameters, using software modelling and I-O data [56]. It emerges as a solitary effort at the building level to seek sustainable building solutions based on the nexus of the three embodied parameters. So, the current endeavour is a worthy attempt to build EC, EE, and EW relationships for four conventional house constructions.

Not only Indian [10], [17] or US studies [57], [58] but also the proponents from other global locations [21], [59], [60] recommend using hybrid LCA methods owing to complexity and overestimation in the I-O method or underestimation in the process-based LCA method. Given the unreliability of input-output (I-O) methods in the current world order, precisely for developing economies like India, the process-based computations are more appropriate, provided the system boundary is robust. The absence of Indian-specific databases for unit material consumption, specifically for EW, nudges the use of established global databases. Relying on materials inventory is logical [17] and aligned with the universal database [34]. So, the literature encourages unravelling EW, EC (GHG), and EE relationships employing a process-based hybrid methodology.

The current study assesses EW, EC (GHG) and EE for four conventional houses in Jammu city, India, due to building material consumption covering cradle to gate (of production plant) stage only. The study uses the alone comprehensive database, i.e., the environmental performance in construction (EPiC) database, providing material-wise coefficients simultaneously for EW, EE, and EC (GHG) [61]. The authors of [34], [50] support the universal applicability of databases like EPiC for missing contextual databases or, in case precise construction procedures (like green rating requirements) are absent. The precise material inventory availability coupled with re-verification through field measurements and on-site visits are compulsory attributes behind the selection of the houses. Further, the cross-sectional technique is chosen to ensure near similarity in construction year and location of the case houses (to eliminate external agencies, if any) and define the conventional construction set-up of the location. The standard methodology recommended by ISO 14044 [62] or 14046 [63] LCA frameworks (Figure 1) is adhered to predict the house-wise impacts (disaggregated cases) and combined one (aggregated case). The current study is the first building-specific attempt to outline EW-EE-EC comparatives simultaneously and positively impact 2030 SDGs.

Methodology adopted in the study

Study area

The study location chosen is Jammu City in the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), India. Table 2 details the essential modalities of the four houses (herein referred to as CR-1, CR-2, CR-3, and CR-4) to encapsulate the relevant leads. Individual houses taken in isolation are called disaggregated cases, while all houses taken together are termed aggregated cases (CR-T).

Description of the conventional houses under study: CR-1, CR-2, CR-3, and CR-4 are four contemporary residences (CR) chosen in the study

Description CR-1 CR-2 CR-3 CR-4
Plot area [m2] 500 250 125 250
Total construction area [m2] 350 391 107 380
Number of floors 2 2 1 2
Project completion year 2022 2022 2021 2022
Is the cellar present? No
Building type Stand-alone family house (plotted accommodation)
Location Jammu
Ownership Self-owned (family)
Concrete mixing In-situ
Type of structure RCC frame Composite (few RCC columns with load-bearing brick walls)

Jammu, a northern Indian city, has excellent potential for development after Article 370 abrogation in 2019. The city’s location and connectivity add to its potential to invite record development. The peripheral conventional houses forming the sprawling growth of the city are already reckoning. Conventional houses are generally single or two stories high and use brick walls with RCC roofs. Specialised construction procedures like green building norms are far from practice. Also, construction is typically driven by owner-contractor consensus concerning materials in structure and finishing works. The conventional architecture of the city is already debatable [64], while a neighbouring but smaller city − Katra, is urging for redevelopment owing to urbanisation [65]. Though modern vertical cities have pros and cons [66], Jammu will likely continue embracing low-rise house typologies for some time, given its seismic, socio-economic, topography and urban morphology considerations.

The state of Jammu and Kashmir, especially the Kashmir zone, has interesting vernacular buildings in wood but is covered in literature to a lesser extent [67]. Traditional architecture is losing its identity through globalisation and monotonous construction preferences [64]. Interestingly, studies seeking traditional and contextualisation of future developments [68] and contemplating potential alternate energy use [69] for Katra exist, but Jammu needs to be addressed as such. Brick manufacturing is available but is relatively informal with quality concerns. Sand and other aggregates used to be available in plenty through the Tawi River, but enormous constructions involved its exploitation and further strictness by the local administration. The city receives satisfactory rainfall but is less aware of techniques like rainwater tanks [70]. Due to the considerable slopy terrain of the city, rainwater ends in mere wastage. Previous research predicts high EW [10] and EE [35] consumption of such conventional houses in Jammu. The study involves four conventional houses in the old Jammu City expansions per Table 2 details.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study proceeds with a set aim by merging various processes and techniques described below.

The goal of the study

The study aims to improve the buildings’ sustainability through a combined matrix assessment of embodied energy, water, and carbon for conventional house constructions in the Indian context.

The research novelty and implications are:

  • The EC, EE and EW assessments are a rare phenomenon to date.

  • The comparative EW, EE, and EC assessment nudges in construction and A+D phase decision-making towards better sustainable built environments.

  • Inevitable evidence shown − whether the prevalent energy or carbon-conscious approaches are also worthy of controlling embodied water. Recommendations and solutions for alternatives, if any, constitute the outlined impact of this research.

  • The fact is that conventional houses are the largest typology by proportion in Indian constructions. So, such a selection of the building typology is fitting to envision sustainable built environments.

  • The exploration is a much-needed contribution to outline not only the scarce EW domain but also a way to address it. The established EE domain is further incremented, and a new dimension towards achieving 2030 SDGs is therefore inevitable.

  • The fact that the outcomes empower policymakers and people, alongside building professionals, towards the shared and distributed responsibilities for sustainable conventional houses, the study is impacting society.

  • The advanced study considers an inventory of 18 materials (15 material groups) instead of only brick, steel, and cement.

Methods

The research carries on the methodology under a joint preview of ISO 14044 [62] and ISO 14046 [63] frameworks as per Figure 1. As evident in this figure, the entire research methodology encompasses goal and scope identification, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and results interpretation and stands covered in dedicated sections accordingly. The stand-out results are summarised in the conclusions section.

Scope and limitations of the study

The study carries for the material production phase in acronym to the cradle-to-gate (of the plant) stage only. The study trusts the near-uniform production process of maximum materials globally. Thus, the study relies on the material inventory as the standard parameter to predict EC, EE, and EW and uses the singular database. Multiple databases, houses of different contexts, or buildings with different typologies are not considered to eliminate overriding parameters like context, climate, construction controls, and other user/owner-specific parameters. The availability of only one database for EW, EC, and EE and covering only the cradle-to-gate phase also encourages the disqualification of other LCA phases for the intended comparative assessments of the three parameters. The study is limited to the conventional houses of fast-developing Jammu city and carefully selected through the cross-sectional technique to gauge the study’s intended purpose effectively. Unit material-wise consumptions are referred to through consultation of hybrid embodied coefficients. Such coefficients cover the entire complexities of production processes (direct and indirect consumptions), including the upstream impacts. So, the various production processes required to meet the process-based hybrid methodology are covered by adopting hybrid embodied coefficients of the EPiC database.

Study boundary

The study undertakes the material production phase, as illustrated in Figure 2. As this figure expresses, all the processes and stages until the material production (gate of production plant) are the thorough system boundary ingredients. As already discussed, the comprehensive production phase, including the complexity of upstream impacts, is covered by referencing hybrid embodied coefficients of the EPiC database. Figure 2 also clarifies the omissions of the LC phases from the system boundary.

Study boundary details

Tools and techniques

The study uses the following tools and techniques:

  • ISO 14044 and ISO 14046 LCA framework to methodologically process the research.

  • Cross-sectional technique to select the houses. Selected houses are typical conventional houses. Besides, they correlate in materials, height, construction technique, and external agencies (like climate), which is crucial for this study as they bear almost similar contexts of location and year of construction.

  • The process-based hybrid LC analysis approach employing the hybrid embodied coefficients for material consumption.

  • The EPiC database used because it is the only global database providing EC, EE, and EW consumptions per unit of material production.

  • Site visits and field-based records supported by on-site investigations to deduce precise material inventory; inventory precision is the basis for selecting cases.

  • Descriptive statistics to compute disaggregated and aggregated impacts, utilising material inventory and EPiC database.

  • System boundary analysis at length to gauge disaggregated and aggregated cases and material-wise consumptions.

  • Statistical modelling based on regression technique to unravel the inter-relationship between EC, EE, and EW

Inventory analysis

The material consumption quantities and respective hybrid embodied coefficients are essential to compute for inventory analysis. The inventory for each disaggregated case is arrived at via field investigations coupled with on-site records available.

The material inventory is available in conventional site units for most of the materials. Such quantities are converted into the same units through standard conversion factors of Indian materials to suit functional units provided in the EPiC database. Table 3 shows details of material-wise consumptions for each house under study and the aggregated case (CR-T). The table indicates that the study bears a more significant boundary by covering 18 materials.

Material inventory for the study cases

S. No. Materials Functional unit (FU) House-wise material inventory [FU]
CR-1 CR-2 CR-3 CR-4 CR-T
1 Steel bars 9,900 10,500 2,500 8,000 30,900
2 Cement 48,250 60,000 22,000 55,000 185,250
3 Sand 1,098,352 923,400 203,490 70,1100 2,926,342
4 Brick 196,000 157,500 77,000 147,000 577,500
5 Coarse aggregates (gravel) 145,001 118,400 59,200 128,000 450,601
6 Aggregate (fine) kg 503,713 357,835 108,560 375,978 1,346,086
7 Ceramic tiles 5,316 10,680 4,440 9,944 30,380
8 Marble stone 12,858 10,975 5,488 11,250 40,571
9 Granite 653 16,330 380 10,881 28,244
10 SS railing 70 200 100 100 470
11 Iron grill 650 900 400 300 2,250
12 Glass Float 75 14 23 11 123
Security 0 102 0 88.3 190
13 Paint (interior) water-based 1,620 2,565 1,080 2,430 7,695
14 Paint (exterior) m2 460 473 270 405 1,608
15 Paint oil-based 340 608 243 513 1,704
16 PVC 74.3 0 32.5 0 107
17 Wood m3 9.2 6.9 2.7 5.7 25
18 Plywood 0 8.82 0.428 6.21 15

The EPiC database holds the monopoly and uniquely provides hybrid embodied coefficients for EC (GHG), EE and EW for maximum building materials. The details of hybrid embodied coefficients for EC, EE, and EW, as per the chronology and FU of materials in Table 3, are expressed in Table 4. The EW, EE and EC coefficients are herein notated as α, β, and λ, respectively. The coefficient α is expressed in L/FU, β in MJ/FU, and λ in kgCO2e/FU, as in Table 4.

Detail of hybrid embodied coefficients (source: EPiC database)

S. No. Material Functional unit (FU) Material-wise hybrid embodied coefficients

α

[L/FU]

β

[MJ/FU]

λ

[kgCO2e/FU]

1 Steel bars 37.1 38.8 2.9
2 Cement 7.8 11.8 1.3
3 Sand 1.8 0.34 0.024
4 Brick 1.8 3.5 0.32
5 Coarse aggregates (gravel) kg 1.9 0.48 0.036
6 Aggregate (fine) 1.9 0.48 0.036
7 Ceramic Tiles 15.2 18.9 1.3
8 Marble Stone 16.5 16.3 1.3
9 Granite 16.5 16.3 1.3
10 SS Railing 168 123 9.2
11 Iron grill 44.3 29.5 2.1
12 Glass Float 335 296 21
Security 785 775 56.9
13 Paint (interior) water-based m2 16.1 8.7 0.53
14 Paint (exterior) 14.7 9.3 0.47
15 Paint oil-based 14.7 9.3 0.47
16 PVC 670 574 26.7
17 Wood m3 58,411 41,597 2,269
18 Plywood 69,363 63,691 3,680
Impact assessment

The equations presented on the next page outline the total impacts for EW, EE, and EC for the disaggregated or aggregated houses, house-wise and material-wise. The calculated impacts of EC, EE, and EW on the study cases are represented in Table 5. The materials initially listed as 18 groups are rearranged here into 15 groups (combining the sub-groups under aggregates, paint, and glass) to simplify the impact revelations. Table 5 also clarifies the total house-wise quantities of EC, EE, and EW in the specified units in the last row.

Material and house-wise EC [kgCO2e], EE [MJ], and EW [L] assessment details

Material Impact assessment house-wise (disaggregated cases)
CR-1 CR-2 CR-3 CR-4
EC EE EW EC EE EW EC EE EW EC EE EW
Steel 28,710 384,120 367,290 30,450 407,400 389,550 7,250 97,000 92,750 23,200 310,400 296,800
Cement 62,725 569,350 376,350 78,000 708,000 468,000 28,600 259,600 171,600 71,500 649,000 429,000
Sand 26,360 373,440 1,977,034 22,162 313,956 1,662,120 4,884 69,187 366,282 16,826 238,374 1,261,980
Brick 62,720 686,000 352,800 50,400 551,250 283,500 24,640 269,500 138,600 47,040 514,500 264,600
Aggregates 23,354 311,383 1,232,557 17,144 228,593 904,847 6,039 80,525 318,744 18,143 241,909 957,558
Ceramic tiles 6,911 100,472 80,803 13,884 201,852 162,336 5,772 83,916 67,488 12,927 187,942 151,149
Marble stone 16,715 209,585 212,157 14,268 178,893 181,088 7,134 89,454 90,552 14,625 183,375 185,625
Granite 849 10,644 10,775 21,229 266,179 269,445 494 6,194 6,270 14,145 177,360 179,537
SS railing 644 8,610 11,760 1,840 24,600 33,600 920 12,300 16,800 920 12,300 16,800
Iron grill 1,365 19,175 28,795 1,890 26,550 39,870 840 11,800 17,720 630 8,850 13,290
Glass 1,575 22,200 25,125 6,098 83,194 84,760 483 6,808 7,705 5,255 71,689 73,001
Paint 1,235 21,534 37,842 1,868 32,369 57,187 814 14,167 24,929 1,719 29,678 52,618
PVC 1,984 42,648 49,781 0 0 0 868 18,655 21,775 0 0 0
Wood 20,875 382,692 537,381 15,656 287,019 403,036 6,126 112,312 157,710 12,933 237,103 332,943
Plywood 0 0 0 32,458 561,755 611,782 1,575 27,260 29,687 22,853 395,521 430,744
Total 256,021 3,141,854 5,300,449 307,346 3,871,609 5,551,120 96,439 1,158,677 1,528,612 262,718 3,258,001 4,645,644

The equations for the total impacts of EW, EE, and EC are following:

EW=j=118αjQj (1)

EE=j=118βjQj (2)

EC=j=118λjQj (3)

where Qj denotes the quantity of the j-th material represented in functional units (FU).

As an example for better understanding, eq. (2) is represented in expanded form as eq. (4):

EE=β1Q1+β2Q2++β18Q18 (4)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Various impacts assessed in previous sections are interpreted under different set-ups using comprehensive system boundary analysis as described below.

Comparatives of total consumptions in disaggregated cases

Table 3 outlines the EC, EE, and EW consumptions with the change in the covered construction area of all disaggregated cases. The covered construction areas of all the disaggregated cases are plotted on the X-axis, while the Y-axis shows the quantities per functional unit as specified. The callouts in Figure 3 showcase the Y-axis entry corresponding to the respective construction area from the X-axis. Figure 3 shows that CR-2 possesses uniformly the highest EC, EE, and EW. CR-3 evidence the lowest consumption for all three components. CR-2 has the largest covered area (391 m2), and CR-3 has the smallest covered area (107 m2) among all disaggregated cases. So, the trend of consumption above, as illustrated in Figure 3, highlights the following:

I) The positive relationship between the covered area of construction and the impact quantities in the specified units. Quite generic, an increase in area is bound to result in higher consumption. An author [29] has expressed concern over the increased EE by increasing dwellings’ floor area, owing to minimal improvisation in EEC of materials.

Further, Table 2 shows CR-2 is larger in covered construction areas by 11.55%, 73%, and 3% than CR-1, CR-3, and CR-4, respectively. Total EW for CR-2 is larger by 4.5%, 73%, and 16% than for CR-1, CR-3 and CR-4, respectively, as concluded from Figure 3. EE is higher by 19%, 70%, and 16% for CR-2 than EE values for CR-1, CR-3, and CR-4, respectively. In the case of EC (GHG), CR-2 exhibits higher values by 17%, 69%, and 15% than CR-1, CR-3, and CR-4, respectively.

Illustration showing changes in EC, EE and EW consumptions as functions of covered construction area of all disaggregated cases

II) A single-storey non-RCC (CR-3) and a double-storey RCC frame construction house (CR-2) of significantly dissimilar areas exhibit a more pronounced and uniform positive relationship of EC, EE, or EW to the covered construction area. Notably, Indian scholars [71] advocated no correlation between EE and the mass of the building. CR-2 of significantly dissimilar areas exhibit a more pronounced and uniform positive relationship of EC, EE, or EW to the covered construction area. Notably, Indian scholars [71] advocated no correlation between EE and the mass of the building.

III) The percentage drop in the covered area of the houses does not correspond to the equal percentage variation in any of the three (EC, EE, EW) components. The covered areas for CR-‍2 and CR-4 are similar, yet EC, EE and EW consumptions for CR-2 outline considerably more than the rest of the cases (Figure 3). While EE and EC consumptions are marginally higher for CR-4 than CR-1, the 2nd highest EW consumption exists for CR-1 and is considerably higher than that of CR-4. The underlying basis is that CR-1 and CR-2 are RCC frame constructions while the others are composite. It outlines that:

IV) RCC constructions account for higher EW among conventional construction types, while the same may not hold equally well for EE and EC. The EW finding correlates with the study [12], while Indian studies [30]-[33] advocated the role of materials selection and construction techniques to reduce EE.

The need to cover an alternate boundary component arises to further the above findings, as scientific literature urges. Thus, house-wise and material-wise consumption per unit construction area of the houses is envisaged to comprehend the impacts better.

Disaggregated cases’ consumptions per unit construction area

The respective disaggregated case impacts (Table 5) are illustrated in terms of the per unit covered construction area (Table 2) of each house in Figure 4. EC (GHG) consumption ranges from 691−901 kgCO2e/m2 across disaggregated cases, as per Figure 4. EE consumption range is 8,574−10,829 MJ/m2. Different Indian conventional residential-based studies showcased the upper EE value of 10,510 MJ/m2 [71], 9,360 MJ/m2 [72] or 7,350 MJ/m2 [31]. Australian studies reported a high EE of 13,000−14,400 MJ/m2 [73]-[75]. The current study EE results are henceforth a strong indication that Indian constructions are doing all right in the EE domain owing to extensive research in previous decades. Further, Indian conventional constructions are better EE-conscious than their Australian counterparts. At the same time, current EE numbers might further recede if the EPiC (Australian) database is replaced with an Indian one.

EC, EE, and EW impacts per unit area in disaggregated cases

Proponents [28], [76] argue that extensive human labour utilisation in Indian industry stands out in lesser values vis-à-vis electricity dominant production of other countries. An indication of high energy use in a developed country like Australia vis-à-vis developing one (India) cannot be ruled out.

EW consumption values show a range of 12,225−15,144 L/m2 for the disaggregated cases in the pre-construction phase, as evident in Figure 4. A prominent office-based Chinese study [77] deduced EW = 10,430 L/m2, while a prominent Iranian study [23] covering residential buildings found EW = 16,910 L/m2. Previous stand-out Indian studies [10], [17] based on houses reveal a much higher EW range of 22,390−25,600 L/m2, while a hotel-based Indian study [25] revealed an EW figure of 18,980 L/m2 in the pre-construction phase. The EWC values used by Indian studies [17], [25] are debatable. However, EW quantifications could be overestimated more because the underlying focus is only on brick, steel, and cement. So, the lesser EW computation in the current study is attributed to EPiC database use and reflects continuous EW reforms in Australia, which is the initiator of EW research. It unravels that computation across contexts may vary. Nevertheless, high EW consumption in conventional Indian houses cannot be ruled out besides needing more consolidation studies. In crux, developed countries (Australia) are already water use conscious, but developing ones like India are still awaiting regulations to come out of UFW attitude.

Figure 4 shows the highest EW for CR-1 while CR-3 possesses the highest EE and EC computed per unit construction area basis. The descending pattern for EE and EC is similar, i.e. CR-3 > CR-2 > CR-1 > CR-4, while the EW consumption trend as per Figure 4 differs. House-wise EW consumptions reveal CR-1 > CR-3 > CR-2 > CR-4 trend in descending order. It leads to:

  • A positive and uniform behaviour of EE and EC consumption in conventional houses concerning materials consumption correlates with studies [78], [79]. The trend of EW impacts across houses varies from that of EE or EC and primarily consolidates EW’s weak link to EE (or EC), as pointed out in studies [40], [80].

  • Small single-storey constructions (CR-3) have the highest EE and EC consumption among the study cases. Relatively higher EW consumption for single-storey construction emerges irrespective of the construction technique or area of the houses. So, it is fitting to conclude that building components like the foundation are highly impacting. An Indian study targets only the foundation part to assess EW in hot-dry climates [81]. The Jammu house owners construct foundations to withstand two or three floors in future, irrespective of constructing a single floor initially. The high EE consumptive nature of foundations is also identified in studies [32], [82].

The results support at least double-storey construction in future conventional residences. Jammu is a potentially developing city, and like most Indian cities, high-rise solutions could have significance in checking EW, EE, and EC. As discussed, given the various pros and cons of vertical cities [66], the cost of a high-rise building apartment unit and the terrain of Jammu to support such constructions are also to be contemplated simultaneously. The interpretations for Figure 3 and Figure 4 need to be further analysed to arrive at consolidated conclusions. Learning from the previous Indian [10] or Australian [83] house-based studies, system boundary analysis predominantly considers material-wise consumptions per unit construction area. Only aggregated case-based interpretations are envisaged to avoid any undue complexity.

Aggregated case consumptions per unit construction area

Figure 5 clarifies the comparatives of aggregated (CR-T) material-wise EC, EE and EC impacts per unit construction area. The values are obtained by the ratio of the cumulative sum of consumptions for a particular material for all houses (Table 6) to the total construction area of all houses (1,228 m2), as shown in Figure 5. All the impacts are shown in distinguished colours in text and illustration (bar and line) in Figure 5, as per specified units provided in the bottom half. Further, the negligible impacts stand ignored to be illustrated through text in Figure 5 for the illustration legibility.

Material-wise EC, EE, and EW assessment for the aggregated case

Material Impact assessment for the aggregated case (CR-T)

EC

[kgCO2e]

EE

[MJ]

EW

[L]

Steel bars 89,610 1,198,920 1,146,390
Cement 240,825 2,185,950 1,444,950
Sand 70,232 994,956 5,267,416
Brick 184,800 2,021,250 1,039,500
Aggregates 64,681 862,410 3,413,705
Ceramic tiles 39,494 574,182 461,776
Marble stone 52,742 661,307 669,422
Granite 36,717 460,377 466,026
SS railing 4,324 57,810 78,960
Iron grill 4,725 66,375 99,675
Glass 13,411 183,891 190,591
Paint 5,635 97,748 172,576
PVC 2,852 61,303 71,556
Wood 55,591 1,019,127 1,431,070
Plywood 56.885 984,535 1,072,213
Total 922,524 11,430,141 17,025,825

Figure 5 shows that cement (196.1 kgCO2e/m2) and brick (150.5 kgCO2e/m2) stand out from the rest of the materials for EC consumption. Similarly, cement (1,780.1 MJ/m2) and brick (1,646.0 MJ/m2) impact the EE criterion the most. However, sand (4,289.4 L/m2) is the most impacting EW material, followed by aggregates (2,779.9 L/m2).

The top EC-impacting materials are cement > brick > steel bars > sand > aggregates. The high EE and EC impact of brick, cement and steel are noted in Indian studies [47], [84]. EE impacts are pronounced for cement > brick > steel bars > wood > sand. Studies [82], [85]-[87] outline the high EE impacts of concrete and its constituents, while others emphasise significant high EE impacts for massive brick use in Indian conventional houses [30]-[33], [84]. Henceforth, proponents urge the adoption of AAC and concrete blocks as alternatives to massive brick use for combating EE [88].

Material-wise EC, EE, and EW per unit area in aggregated case

Notably, prominent materials for EW impacts are sand > aggregates > cement > wood > steel bars. Figure 5 illustration interpolates to:

  • An EC-conscious approach in selecting materials for conventional houses seems effective for EE conservation. The close association of EC (GHG) and EE has been consistently reported in the past, too [13], [89]. However, EW conservation requires broadening the EC or EE-conscious measures as sand and aggregates recede in priority for EE or EC. Outlined EW-specific attention for sand and aggregates is reported in a stand-out 2022 study [10] and studies [60], [90], [91].

  • Brick impacts in EW fail to emerge in the top 5 materials, but it stands out for EE and EC impacts. Pertinently, before 2022, Indian studies [17], [25] target to cover EW aspects only for brick, steel, and cement (top EE consumptive ones). A broad system boundary coverage through a 2022 study [10] identified the role of sand, aggregates, and other materials for EW consumption in conventional Indian houses. The current study consolidates it further.

  • Steel is not the prominent EW consumption material, contrary to previous scientific literature [17], [25], but consolidates the stand-out Indian studies of 2022 [10] and 2024 [50]. The marked Indian cities and current ones consider many materials beyond steel, cement, and brick. Moreover, the emphasis on steel-based resource consumption has been outlined for decades, greatly improving steel production. The EW debate’s inception was owed to Australia in 2004, and the EPiC database of Australia reflects the much-improvised EW of steel production in Australia since 2004.

  • The bottom line of the analysis arrives at a clear connection of EE and EC, but the EW aspect differs [14], [79].

Interrelationship assessment using regression technique

The relationship between the impacting components (EC, EE, and EW) is evident in the sections above, hinting at a strong and positive one between EE−EC. Figure 6 and Figure 7 clarify the extent of the mutual inter-relationship between the three components through statistical modelling using the regression technique (R2 value). The material-wise EC consumptions per unit construction area in the aggregated case (like Figure 5) are plotted in the Y-axis, while corresponding EW and EE consumption values for all 15 materials are plotted in the X-axis, as per the specified units in Figure 6.

EC to EE and EW relationship graph using regression technique

The EC vs. EW relationship graph returns with an R2 value of 0.0869, meaning 8.69% fitness of positive and linear relationship is evident, while EC vs. EE relationship fitness amounts to 93.4%. In other words, Figure 6 indicates a weak relationship between EC and EW and a strong and positive interrelation between EC and EE. Considering the material inventory and pre-construction LCA phase, the finding of a significantly weak EC (GHG) and EW relationship at the building level is nothing short of a breakthrough. In contrast, the solid and positive EE−EC relation strengthens the previous attempts [13], [78], [79]. It implies that EE measures over the preceding decades check the EC component. However, EW measures invite a different outlook, as the abovementioned sections prove. Figure 7 further crystallises the takeaways.

Figure 7 aims at the EE vs. EW relationship by plotting material-wise EE consumptions per unit construction area in the aggregated case (Y axis) and corresponding EW consumptions (X axis) for all 15 materials. The consumption values are plotted in consistent units and stand specified through the axis labels in Figure 7. It reveals the EE−EW relationship through an R2 value of 0.1565, which means 15.65% strength of the positive and linear relationship. It translates as a weak EE to relationship considering the material consumption scenario of Indian conventional houses.

EE−EW relationship graph using regression technique

A weak EE−EW relationship is observed in a 2022 study [42] based on five institutional buildings and utilising the R2 value approach. Another study [40] reflects the weak EE−EW relationship using the R2 approach. While some studies [14], [42], [80] also find almost zero EE−EW relationship, interestingly, few studies [81], [92]-[94] hint at the probability of an EE−EW relationship to some extent. Nevertheless, various nexus studies, for example, a review study [4], find that 94% of the urban energy-water-carbon studies focus on the ‘energy-water nexus’ relationship instead of three components in one go at product or sector-level studies. So, a solid and positive EE−EC relationship and a weak EE−EW (and EC−EW) relationship seem to fit the global research scenario.

EPiC database tables show uniformity in positive or negative change in all three components (EC, EE, or EW) with change in unit material [61]. For example, if moving from material 1 to material 2 shows an EEC increase in EPiC, it would also increase EWC and ECC. So, a positive relationship interpretation reflects unit material consumption. However, the harmonious mix of material consumption patterns in conventional Indian houses demonstrates the strong EE−EC and extremely weak EE−EW or EC−EW relationships. So, quantity-wise material use pattern needs an interrogation to balance the three components in parallel.

It is observed that Jammu residences are discouraging wood use already. Reforms in the global steel and cement industry are also emerging consistently. The cessation of Jammu’s informal brick industry is inevitable due to resource consumption, cost, and quality concerns. EE research over the last three decades is visible in the rise of various alternative materials to substitute the primarily consumptive ones like brick. Such alternative materials are expected to make a mark in conventional Indian houses. Various construction methods like rat-trap bonds exposed masonry in concrete or ceramic bricks check EC, EE, and EW simultaneously through decreased use of brick and abandoning the plasterwork (sand). Further, there are apparent advantages in on-site water use (reduced curing and material use), reduced construction period, and the cost involved.

A positive and robust interrelationship between EE and EC but differing EW behaviour calls for a broad materials template identifying the top simultaneous impacts. An EW-conscious approach in selecting materials for conventional houses may disregard the importance of steel, brick, or cement, which otherwise are prominent considering EE (or EC) impacts. The novel area of EW has outlined materials like sand and aggregates. Amid the high global water-related concerns, EW’s approach deserves an overriding preference. Considering the combined matrix of EC, EE, and EW, it is essential to consider a high-impacting material palette. If wood use continues to be discarded in the conventional houses and EE reforms (strongly correlated to EC) are consolidating continuously, the EW impacting materials approach to devising a broad materials template is fitting. A refined approach under the EW umbrella, but with specific attention to brick, cement and steel, would unleash a new approach towards building sustainability in the 21st century. So, taking a holistic preview and recalling the outcomes of Figure 6 and Figure 7 besides Figure 5, this study proposes to conserve EC, EE, and EW by attending the use of the following materials: sand > aggregates > cement > steel bars > brick > plywood.

The current study is indeed subjective to conventional Indian constructions of Jammu. Nevertheless, it opens valuable horizons to the knowledgeable audience. Thanks to the established EE research, localised EE databases are in place. The EC has its basis directly in EE, so its determination is near exactitude using localised databases. However, EW assessment is an infant and untouched domain, yet the databases are seldom noticed, barring the Australian one. Pertinently, the use of global databases is recommended by the proponents irrespective of the context; for example, the EPiC database is applied for American [95], Mediterranean [96], [97], and Indian [10], [50] context-based studies. The identification and trend of top impacting materials on EW and EE are the same despite different databases consultation [50]. So, it is worthwhile to avoid getting carried away with the quantitative assessment; the chronology of the impacting materials, building elements, or construction phases holds significance. Thus, the study’s outcome in establishing a materials-wise chronology for the comparative EC−EE−EW assessment is valuable. Sustainable built environments are thus better envisioned by holistically considering the combined matrix of EC, EE, and EW in conventional constructions.

By reflecting on the impact of material use based on a single parameter or all three parameters, architects and societal players must seek and contemplate improvisations to better introspect in the A+D phase of buildings. The Indian manufacturing industry is relatively informal and primarily dependent on human labour. So, if and when the Indian database emerges, it can reflect differential EE, EC, and EW quantifications. Therefore, as already discussed, different databases return different quantities; hence, databases used have a subjective role. Still, based on a global database, the study reflects reverse psychology. It could encourage the industry to transpire EW numbers honestly and consolidate the knowledge bank for different regions and countries. EE research also flourished in a similar pattern in previous decades. The consumption numbers and specifically accentuating the top impacting materials in this research are still clinical vis-à-vis scientific literature. EPiC database is Australian-based, and it was the first country to intervene in the EW matter in 2004. It reflects the unit material-wise consumption for all three parameters, so the controls and assumptions, if any, remain the same. Using global databases, especially the EPiC database, is logical for now. The latest and continuously improvising databases like EPiC are understood to provide clinical resource consumption values (both direct and indirect) by including comprehensive and complex production steps, such as extraction of ores, in the case of steel production. Nevertheless, manufacturing reforms are also becoming identical in the current globalised era, making our findings increasingly rigorous.

After the inception of EW studies in 2004, the Australian manufacturing industry improved in EW conservation measures. While unregulated, irresponsible, and higher water consumption in most other countries, including India, there are lags in reporting in scientific literature. Through its massiveness, the Indian construction industry is pivotal in resource consumption in other countries. When coupled with UFW’s association with Indians, the water consumption scenario is enormously scary. The Indian construction sector already reflects much higher EW based on the current results. The quantifications go haywire when adding the 30% non-revenue water component attributed to only the leakages component in the country’s water supply scenario. So, the study aptly urges global academia and research groups to adopt global databases to create awareness about current EW consumption and further contemplate conserving EW.

On the methodology front, it has sufficient scope to replicate across different global regions for both EW assessment and its nexus to EE (or EC). The I-O method is not logical, acknowledging the absence of economy-based data in the Indian context. I-O methods bring many sectors into calculations, further resulting in overestimation, while the unreliability of developing nations’ economies is another challenge. Process-based methods almost invariably lag the comprehension to take all complex micro-level steps of a process, which results in underestimation. Using hybrid processes utilising accurate material inventories is fruitful, particularly in the scarce EW domain. The study considers only one process, i.e. material production phase (cradle-to-gate approach); multiple processes can be included in advanced EW studies in cradle-to-site or cradle-to-grave assessments. Since there are trade-offs between water and energy, developing a similar methodology, future studies can include further construction processes like on-site construction phase water use, electricity, and fuel consumption (indirect water) in on-site construction, material supply chain and workforce-related water and fuel consumptions. Knowing the various inventory from the site data and field investigations, EW assessment for a broader boundary condition and varied building typologies is inevitable.

Given the non-realisation of responsible water use behaviour without stringent policy reforms, user and facility-level water auditing is hard to find. Further, conventional houses are the ideal representation of Indian construction and seldom involve any attention to conservative resource use. Therefore, attending conventional typologies is more valid than conducting studies based on easy data availability. For now, hybrid and triangulation approaches for data collection as per the best of site records and availability (in consumption units or currency) should not be a barrier to conducting EW studies. Therefore, the current study should urge the researchers to follow suit and intervene in the dominant construction typologies in the respective regions.

The outcomes of the study are realistic and pragmatic. By developing the study outcomes, it is possible to unleash the effectiveness of the localised construction and architecture practices among the masses and administration. Realising more empirical studies are valuable in conserving resource consumption and having a checklist for dos and don’ts in the prevailing practices. Building bylaws and development controls can be redevised, considering materials, construction area, and number of floors vis-à-vis the plot size and economic status of the user. Auditing is the first step towards creating awareness. However, the current study is a lasting effort to encourage design, user, and policy interventions. The peer group must highlight the governing issues of current building construction practices and should seek ways to conserve resource efficiency, including EW. Indeed, it is time to test EE-conscious practices concerning EW consumption and the harmonious mix of A+D and other user-level approaches to wisely cater to all three parameters.

The current study, therefore, is much more than an auditing-only exercise. The research is novel to seek the interrelationship between the three components simultaneously. The current world is realising fast that water is indispensable to the future liveability of the planet, including any efforts towards SBE practice. The fact that EE- or EC-conscious solutions are not conserving EW is a realistic breakthrough to perceive future SBE. It unleashes a new horizon vis-à-vis the feeble existing research to consider even two components. A current study is a valid approach to seeking more contributions from academia and the material industry. The scope of the relationship equation between EC, EE, and EW is left to future studies with a larger sample. Various material and construction reforms need a broad outlook for consistent adaptation through technical platforms like sensitivity analysis, BIM applications and simulations. Techniques like AHP and TOPSIS can be helpful to draw conclusions involving experts and construction actors. Conventional constructions predominantly disobey the building regulations, too. So, the cost factor of the solutions is also worth intriguing as conventional construction clients have more orientation towards cost-cutting and efficiency. While studies can think of alternate solutions in constructions, our study has taken a more pragmatic approach of not deviating from the current practices. Instead, tweaking the current ones is more likely to get adopted in the Indian context. With EE research consolidated enough already while EC is strongly connected to it, the EW research invites profound contributions to seek a sustainable built environment in the 21st century and beyond.

CONCLUSION

The study is a novel attempt to seek EC, EE and EW assessments and their interrelationships in a single study. While the study consolidates the close association of EE and EC, it outlines the stand-out and differential behaviour of EW impacts stronger than the other two components for the conventional houses of Jammu in the pre-construction phase. A weak relationship unravels between EW to EE or EW to EC. The unprecedented study opts for a consistent database (EPiC) providing the hybrid embodied coefficients of building materials for all three components: EC, EE, and EW. The following findings stand out:

  • There is a positive and strong correlation of EE−EC.

  • EE’s conscious approach over the decades is controlling EC, too, but not the EW in building construction. EW’s conscious approach needs a varied canvas for construction techniques and building materials.

  • Cement, brick, and steel are dominant EE and EC impacts. However, sand and aggregates are the top EW-impacting ones. Brick does not even make it to the top 5 EW-impacting ones.

  • Indian conventional constructions seem considerate around EE already, while high on EW component vis-à-vis other prominent global works.

  • To cut the three components simultaneously, building professionals need to consider material-wise attention in the order of sand > aggregates > cement > steel bars > brick > plywood.

  • Global databases and material inventory are recommended for such studies across regions, primarily the infant EW domain.

  • Steel is not the topmost EW-impacting material, contrary to the previous studies.

  • Single-storey conventional houses are top EE and EC impacting while showing significantly high EW, too, hinting at the high foundation impacts on the three components. Conventional houses in Jammu should be at least double-storey.

  • RCC constructions have a high EW impact, while the same does not hold for EE or EC.

Previous EW studies’ approach to only considering top EE-impacting materials for identifying EW impact deserves significant improvisation. In the current study, recognising EW impacts for sand, aggregates, and plywood stands out. The study contributes to EE or EC research regarding assessments and relationships. It is a precious contribution to the scarce EW domain through various findings, while the first such attempt to outline the EW−EC relationship. The comparative relationship of EE, EW, and EC helps architects, society, and policymakers to seek better sustainable solutions and defy the emphasis on a single aspect of EE. The results outline the suitability of previous approaches, whether the energy-conscious building is equally EW- or EC-efficient. The research is novel and unfolds interesting yet critical aspects of approaching conventional buildings’ architectural design and construction.

The results call for more contributions to the study’s outcomes to identify the material use and alternatives. Improvised LCA boundary conditions in future nexus studies are inevitable. Simulation studies and techniques like sensitivity analysis, TOPSIS, and AHP are envisaged for future attempts in this domain. The key to seeking sustainable built environments is to pay specific attention to EW research and associated impacts outlined in the study.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge the support of IIT Roorkee and SMVD University, Katra (J&K) in the research. We are incredibly grateful for the in-depth insights of the editor and the three anonymous reviewers. The corresponding author is specifically grateful to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Government of India, for the travel grant support to the 18th SDEWES conference and the additional support rendered by the supervisor. The SDEWES team’s consideration for discounted registration is special. We also acknowledge all the technical and administrative help rendered by one and all at IIT Roorkee, India.

NOMENCLATURE
EC Embodied carbon [kgCO2e]
EE Embodied energy [MJ]
EW Embodied water [L]
Q Quantity of the material [FU]
Greek letters
α Embodied water coefficient [L/FU]
β Embodied energy coefficient [MJ/FU]
λ Embodied carbon coefficient [kgCO2e/FU]
Subscript
j Index of material or group of materials
Abbreviations
A+D Architecture plus Design
AAC Autoclaved Aerated Concrete
AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process
BIM Building Information Modeling
ECC EC Coefficient
EEC EE Coefficient
EREW Energy Related EW
EWC EW Coefficient
EPiC Environmental Performance in Construction
FU Functional Unit (kg, m2, or m3)
GHG Greenhouse Gas
LC Life Cycle
LCA LC Assessment
OE Operational Energy
OW Operational Water
RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete
SBE Sustainable Built Environment
SDG Sustainable Development Goals
TOPSIS Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
UFW Unaccounted for Water use
VW Virtual Water
REFERENCES
  1. Buildings and Climate Change: Summary for Decision Makers, 20092024, https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/32152
  2. Baynes T., The Australian industrial ecology virtual laboratory and multi-scale assessment of buildings and construction, Energy Build, Vol. 164 , pp 14–20, 2018, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.12.056
  3. Dixit M., Pradeep Kumar P., Analysing Water Use Embodied in the Initial Construction and Life Cycle Management of Healthcare Facilities, IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci, Vol. 1176 (1), pp 012011, 2023, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1176/1/012011
  4. Meng F., Liu G., Liang S., Su M., Yang Z., Critical review of the energy-water-carbon nexus in cities, Energy, Vol. 171 , pp 1017–1032, 2019, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.01.048
  5. Li R., Water–energy–carbon nexus at campus scale: Case of North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Energy Policy, Vol. 166 , pp 113001, 2022, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113001
  6. Sfakianaki E., Resource-efficient construction: Rethinking construction towards sustainability, World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 2015
  7. Venkatarama Reddy B., Sustainable materials for low carbon buildings, International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, Vol. 4 (3), pp 175–181, 2009, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctp025
  8. Praleya P., , Facets of India’s Security, 2021
  9. Devanand R., Prashanth S., Devi P., Chethan B., Amar R., Harsha H., Assessment of embodied energy of masonry building materials in Hassan, India, Mater Today Proc, 2022
  10. Kumar Sharma A., Chani P., Decisive design and building construction technologies vis-à-vis embodied water consumption assessment in conventional masonry houses: Case of Jammu, India, Energy Build, 2022
  11. , Sustainable Buildings and Construction for India: Policies, Practices and Performance, 2009
  12. Hosseinian S., Ghahari S., The relationship between structural parameters and water footprint of residential buildings, J Clean Prod, Vol. 279 , 2021, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123562
  13. Coolen J., Generalised changes of benthic communities after construction of wind farms in the southern North Sea, J Environ Manage, Vol. 315 , pp 115173, 2022, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115173
  14. Pomponi F., Stephan A., Water, energy, and carbon dioxide footprints of the construction sector: A case study on developed and developing economies, Water Res, Vol. 194 , 2021, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.116935
  15. Hosseinian S., Sabouri A., Carmichael D., Sustainable production of buildings based on Iranian vernacular patterns: A water footprint analysis, Build Environ, Vol. 242 , pp 110605, 2023, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110605
  16. Hariharan J., Izadi Moud H., Sands K., Capano C., Stockinger K., Vowels J., Benchmarking Drinking Water Consumption during Construction Phase, Construction Research Congress, 20222022
  17. Bardhan S., Assessment of water resource consumption in building construction in India, WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 144 , pp 93–101, 2011, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2495/ECO110081
  18. Bardhan S., Baseline Studies on Embodied Water Footprint of a RC Frame Constructed Building in Urban India, International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, Vol. 5 (6), pp 171–174, 20152024
  19. Treloar G., Mccormack M., Palmowski L., Fay R.Embodied water of Construction, 20042024, www.savewater.com.au
  20. McCormack M., Treloar G., Palmowski L., Crawford R., Modelling direct and indirect water requirements of construction, Building Research and Information, Vol. 35 (2), pp 156–162, 2007, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210601125383
  21. Crawford R., Pullen S., Life cycle water analysis of a residential building and its occupants, Building Research & Information, Vol. 39 (6), pp 589–602, 2011, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2011.584212
  22. Rivero-Camacho C., Marrero M., Water Footprint of the Life Cycle of Buildings: Case Study in Andalusia, Spain, 2022
  23. Heravi G., Abdolvand M., Assessment of water consumption during production of material and construction phases of residential building projects, Sustain Cities Soc, Vol. 51 , pp 101785, 2019, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101785
  24. Bardhan S., Choudhuri I., Studies on virtual water content of urban buildings in India, Indian J Sci Technol, Vol. 9 (6), 2016, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i6/87671
  25. Choudhuri I., Assessment of Embodied Water of Construction: Case Study of a Four Star Rated Hotel in New Delhi, India, International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology, Vol. 3 (8), pp 195–199, 20152024
  26. Crawford R., Treloar G.An assessment of the energy and water embodied in commercial building construction, 200520222024, http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30005640
  27. Cabeza L., Rincón L., Vilariño V., Pérez G., Castell A., Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 29 , pp 394–416, 2014, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.037
  28. Ajayi S., Oyedele L., Ilori O., Changing significance of embodied energy: A comparative study of material specifications and building energy sources, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 23 , pp 324–333, 2019, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.02.008
  29. Santamouris M., Vasilakopoulou K., Present and Future Energy Consumption of Buildings: Challenges and Opportunities towards Decarbonisation, e-Prime, 2021
  30. Venkatarama Reddy B., Jagadish K., Embodied energy of common and alternative building materials and technologies, Energy Build, Vol. 35 (2), pp 129–137, 2003, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(01)00141-4
  31. Ramesh T., Prakash R., Kumar Shukla K., Life Cycle Energy Analysis of a Multifamily Residential House: A Case Study in Indian Context, Open Journal of Energy Efficiency, Vol. 02 (01), pp 34–41, 2013, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4236/ojee.2013.21006
  32. Shukla A., Tiwari G., Sodha M., Embodied energy analysis of adobe house, Renew Energy, Vol. 34 (3), pp 755–761, 2009, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.04.002
  33. Vengala J., Ramesh K., Manjunatha M., Dharek M., Kumar B., Embodied energy and operational energy computations for a typical g+3 residential building in vijayawada city of andhra pradesh, india, International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration, Vol. 8 (81), pp 1049–1058, 2021, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.19101/IJATEE.2021.874169
  34. Rauf A., Attoye D., Crawford R., Embodied and Operational Energy of a Case Study Villa in UAE with Sensitivity Analysis, Buildings, Vol. 12 (9), pp 1469, 2022, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12091469
  35. Kumar A., Ecological Footprint of Residential Buildings in Composite Climate of India—A Case Study, Sustainability, Vol. 13 (21), pp 11949, 2021, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111949
  36. Varun A., Sharma V., Nautiyal H., Life cycle environmental assessment of an educational building in Northern India: A case study, Sustain Cities Soc, Vol. 4 , pp 22–28, 2012, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2012.03.002
  37. Saini L., Meena C., Raj B., Agarwal N., Kumar A., Net Zero Energy Consumption building in India: An overview and initiative toward sustainable future, Int J Green Energy, Vol. 19 (5), pp 544–561, 2022, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2021.1948417
  38. Mannan M., Al-Ghamdi S., Environmental impact of water-use in buildings: Latest developments from a life-cycle assessment perspective, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 261 , 2020, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110198
  39. Rivero-Camacho C., Martín-del-Río J., Marrero-Meléndez M., Evolution of the life cycle of residential buildings in Andalusia: Economic and environmental evaluation of their direct and indirect impacts, Sustain Cities Soc, Vol. 93 , pp 104507, 2023, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104507
  40. Dixit M., Pradeep Kumar P., Analysing Embodied Energy and Embodied Water of Construction Materials for an Environmentally Sustainable Built Environment, IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci, Vol. 1122 (1), pp 012045, 2022, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1122/1/012045
  41. Sakata I., Sasaki H., Bibliometric Analysis of International Collaboration in Wind and Solar Energy, Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems, Vol. 1 (3), pp 187–198, 2013, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.13044/j.sdewes.2013.01.0014
  42. Dixit M., Kumar P., Haghighi O., Embodied water analysis of higher education buildings using an input-output-based hybrid method, J Clean Prod, Vol. 365 , pp 132866, 2022, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132866
  43. Dixit M., Pradeep Kumar P., Shanbhag S., Analysing embodied energy and embodied water for university buildings using input-output-based hybrid method, IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci, Vol. 1196 (1), pp 012047, 2023, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1196/1/012047
  44. Dixit M., Pradeep Kumar P., Embodied impacts of buildings from energy-carbon-water nexus perspective: A case study of university buildings, Cleaner Energy Systems, Vol. 7 , pp 100108, 2024, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cles.2024.100108
  45. Kumar A., Building Regulations Related to Energy and Water in Indian Hill Towns, Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems, Vol. 5 (4), pp 496–508, 2017, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.13044/j.sdewes.d5.0161
  46. Garmston H., Pan W., Non-Compliance with Building Energy Regulations: The Profile, Issues, and Implications on Practice and Policy in England and Wales, Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems, Vol. 1 (4), pp 340–351, 2013, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.13044/j.sdewes.2013.01.0026
  47. Suresh Vidyasagar C., Rajasekar E., Chani P., On-Site Construction Phase Carbon Footprint of Different Multi-Storied Buildings in India, 2022
  48. Lopes D., Silva R., Rivero-Camacho C., Rusu D., Marrero M., Methodology for Improving the Sustainability of Industrial Buildings via Matrix of Combinations Water and Carbon Footprint Assessment, sustainability, Vol. 14 (22), pp 15297, 2022, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215297
  49. Rydlewski J., Identification of Embodied Environmental Attributes of Construction in Metropolitan and Growth Region of Melbourne, Australia to Support Urban Planning, sustainability, Vol. 14 (14), pp 8401, 2022, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148401
  50. Sharma A., Chani P., Embodied water-energy nexus towards sustainable building construction: Case of conventional Indian houses, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 83 , pp 108453, 2024, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.108453
  51. Dixit M., Kumar P., Embodied Energy, Embodied Water and Embodied Carbon of University Buildings: Energy-Carbon-Water Nexus Approach to Sustainable Buildings, 2023
  52. Pahade A., Khare P.Comparison of Water analysis between AAC blocks-Gypsum plaster & Burnt red clay bricks-Sand cement plaster, 20162024, www.irjet.net
  53. Rahman M., Rahman M., Haque M., Rahman A., Sustainable Water Use in Construction, Sustainable Construction Technologies, Elsevier, 2019
  54. Gamarra A., Istrate I., Herrera I., Lago C., Lizana J., Lechón Y., Energy and water consumption and carbon footprint of school buildings in hot climate conditions. Results from life cycle assessment, J Clean Prod, Vol. 195 , pp 1326–1337, 2018, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.153
  55. Rahman M., Rahman M., Haque M., Rahman A., Sustainable Water Use in Construction, Sustainable Construction Technologies, Elsevier, 2019
  56. Dixit M., Pradeep Kumar P., , Life-Cycle of Structures and Infrastructure Systems, 2023
  57. Dixit M., Life cycle embodied energy analysis of residential buildings: A review of literature to investigate embodied energy parameters, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 79 , pp 390–413, 2017, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.051
  58. Pradeep Kumar P., Venkatraj V., Dixit M., Evaluating the temporal representativeness of embodied energy data: A case study of higher education buildings, Energy Build, Vol. 254 , pp 111596, 2022, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111596
  59. Abd El-Hameed A., Mansour Y., Faggal A., Benchmarking water efficiency of architectural finishing materials based on a ‘cradle-to-gate’ approach, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 14 , pp 73–80, 2017, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.10.001
  60. Han M., Chen G., Meng J., Wu X., Alsaedi A., Ahmad B., Virtual water accounting for a building construction engineering project with nine sub-projects: A case in E-town, Beijing, J Clean Prod, Vol. 112 , pp 4691–4700, 2016, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.048
  61. Crawford R., Stephan A., Prideaux F., The EPiC database: Hybrid embodied environmental flow coefficients for construction materials, Resour Conserv Recycl, Vol. 180 , 2022, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106058
  62. ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guideline, 20062023, https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14044:ed-1:v1:en
  63. ISO 14046:2014 Environmental management — Water footprint — Principles, requirements and guidelines, 20142023, https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14046:ed-1:v1:en
  64. Sharma A., Garg R., Hazarika A., Conventional architecture of jammu: An analytical review, International Journal on Emerging Technologies, Vol. 10 (3), pp 114–122, 20192024
  65. Sharma A., Revitalising the Urban Development Scenario- Contemporary Katra Town, Procedia Soc Behav Sci, Vol. 216 , pp 236–248, 2016, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.12.033
  66. Garg R., Sharma A., Advantages, Disadvantages and Challenges of Sustainable Vertical Cities, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol. 5 (1), pp 339–342, 2023
  67. Thappa A., Sharma A., Kumar S., Understanding Vernacular Architecture in terms of Sustainability: Lessons from Turkey and India, ISVS e-journal, Vol. 9 (1), 20222023
  68. Mathavan G., Sharma A., Garg R., Methodological approach towards reliving katra: A cultural cluster for tourism, International Journal on Emerging Technologies, Vol. 10 (1), pp 169–175, 20192023
  69. Sharma A., Dogra V., Preparation of Papers - Potential Alternate Energy Resources for Sustainability: A Must Need for a top Pilgrimage City, Energy Procedia, 2017, Vol. 115 , pp 173–182, , https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.05.047
  70. Sountharajah D., Kus B., Kandasamy J., Vigneswaran S., Quantifying the Reduction in Water Demand due to Rainwater Tank Installations at Residential Properties in Sydney, Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems, Vol. 5 (2), pp 202–218, 2017, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.13044/j.sdewes.d5.0144
  71. Praseeda K., Reddy B., Mani M., Embodied and operational energy of urban residential buildings in India, Energy Build, Vol. 110 , pp 211–219, 2016, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.09.072
  72. Bardhan S., Embodied energy analysis of multi storied residential buildings in urban India, WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 143 , pp 411–421, 2011, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2495/ESUS110351
  73. Treloar G., Fay R., Love P., Iyer-Raniga U., Analysing the life-cycle energy of an Australian residential building and its householders, Building Research & Information, Vol. 28 (3), pp 184–195, 2000, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/096132100368957
  74. Rauf A., Crawford R., The effect of building and material service life on the life cycle embodied energy of an apartment building, The Architectural Science Association and The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, 2015
  75. Aye L., Ngo T., Crawford R., Gammampila R., Mendis P., Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building modules, Energy Build, Vol. 47 , pp 159–168, 2012, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.11.049
  76. Abey S., Anand K., Embodied Energy Comparison of Prefabricated and Conventional Building Construction, Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series A, Vol. 100 (4), pp 777–790, 2019, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-019-00394-8
  77. Meng J., Virtual water accounting for building: Case study for E-town, Beijing, J Clean Prod, Vol. 68 , pp 7–15, 2014, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.045
  78. Dixit M., Life cycle recurrent embodied energy calculation of buildings: A review, J Clean Prod, Vol. 209 , pp 731–754, 2019, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.230
  79. Stephan A., Athanassiadis A., Quantifying and mapping embodied environmental requirements of urban building stocks, Build Environ, Vol. 114 , pp 187–202, 2017, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.043
  80. Zhang K., Analysis of the relationship between water and energy in China based on a multi-regional input-output method, J Environ Manage, Vol. 309 , pp 114680, 2022, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114680
  81. Jain H., Shrivastava S., Accounting of water footprint in substructure in a typical Multistory concrete building, 2016
  82. Estokova A., Porhincak M., Environmental analysis of two building material alternatives in structures with the aim of sustainable construction, Clean Technol Environ Policy, Vol. 17 (1), pp 75–83, 2015, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-0758-z
  83. Stephan A., Crawford R., A comprehensive life cycle water analysis framework for residential buildings, Building Research & Information, Vol. 42 (6), pp 685–695, 2014, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.921764
  84. Debnath A., Singh S., Singh Y., Comparative assessment of energy requirements for different types of residential buildings in India, Energy Build, Vol. 23 (2), pp 141–146, 1995, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7788(95)00939-6
  85. Culakova M., Vilcekova S., Krídlová Burdová E., Katunska J., Reduction of Carbon Footprint of Building Structures, Chemical Engineering Transactions, Vol. 29 , pp 199–204, 2012, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1229034
  86. Macias J., Iturburu L., Rodriguez C., Agdas D., Boero A., Soriano G., Embodied and operational energy assessment of different construction methods employed on social interest dwellings in Ecuador, Energy Build, Vol. 151 , pp 107–120, 2017, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.06.016
  87. Asif M., Dehwah A., Ashraf F., Khan H., Shaukat M., Hassan M., Life Cycle Assessment of a Three-Bedroom House in Saudi Arabia, Environments, Vol. 4 (3), pp 52, 2017, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/environments4030052
  88. Bansal D., Singh R., Sawhney R., Effect of construction materials on embodied energy and cost of buildings—A case study of residential houses in India up to 60m2 of plinth area, Energy Build, Vol. 69 , pp 260–266, 2014, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.11.006
  89. Jin T., Kim J., What is better for mitigating carbon emissions–Renewable energy or nuclear energy? A panel data analysis, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 91 , pp 464–471, 2018, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.022
  90. Kabeer K., Vyas A., Utilisation of marble powder as fine aggregate in mortar mixes, Constr Build Mater, Vol. 165 , pp 321–332, 2018, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.061
  91. Arosio V., Arrigoni A., Dotelli G., Reducing water footprint of building sector: Concrete with seawater and marine aggregates, 2019
  92. Pullen S., Chiveralls K., Zillante G., Palmer J., Wilson L., Zuo J., , 2012
  93. Abd El-Hameed A., Towards an Egyptian Benchmark for Water Efficiency During the Core Manufacturing Processes of Building Materials, American Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 3 (2), pp 37–42, 2018
  94. Nezamoleslami R., Hosseinian S., An improved water footprint model of steel production concerning virtual water of personnel: The case of Iran, J Environ Manage, Vol. 260 , 2020, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110065
  95. Venkatraj V., Dixit M., Life cycle embodied energy analysis of higher education buildings: A comparison between different LCI methodologies, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 144 , pp 110957, 2021, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110957
  96. Stephan A., Stephan L., Achieving net zero life cycle primary energy and greenhouse gas emissions apartment buildings in a Mediterranean climate, Appl Energy, Vol. 280 , pp 115932, 2020
  97. Boja N., Borz S., Energy inputs in motor-manual release cutting of broadleaved forests: Results of twelve options, Energies (Basel), Vol. 13 (18), pp 4597, 2020

DBG