IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i10p3979-d1391471.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison Regarding the Carbon Footprint of Various Sustainable Seismic Consolidation Solutions for Romanian Orthodox Churches

Author

Listed:
  • Mihai Gosta

    (Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Politehnica University Timisoara, Traian Lalescu 2/A, 300223 Timisoara, Romania)

  • Mihai Fofiu

    (Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Politehnica University Timisoara, Traian Lalescu 2/A, 300223 Timisoara, Romania)

  • Imola Kirizsan

    (Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Str. Observatorului 34-36, 400500 Cluj-Napoca, Romania)

Abstract

In Romania, there are numerous Orthodox churches, many of which are historical monuments of great cultural value that have suffered multiple degradations over time due to various natural or man-made reasons. In a context that is currently increasingly focused on environmental protection, we aim to analyse the carbon footprint of several different consolidation proposals to an Orthodox church with structural deteriorations (and more) and the equivalent impact if a similar building were erected with new materials. The research is proposed to be a stepping stone for determining the sustainability of interventions for orthodox churches, as the existing literature is scarce when it comes to the emissions of these churches and there is no norm to prevent unsustainable interventions. The Orthodox Church “Sfintii Voievozi”, the subject of the analysis, is in the city of Tg. Jiu, Gorj County. The construction was documented to be between 1748 and 1764 and is a historical monument listed in the LMI GJ-II-m-A-09189 registry. The architectural solutions for the church and the structural elements that comprise the load-bearing system are presented. A detailed investigation was conducted to determine structural and non-structural degradations, specifying the main causes that have produced them. With regard to consolidation solutions, two options are presented and compared in this paper: Alternative I—minimal intervention and Alternative II—maximal intervention, both of which are reversible. The carbon footprint calculation was carried out for both options, determining the associated material consumption, and compared to the carbon footprint for the case of a new construction. In conclusion, the consolidation methods with a minimal degree of intervention is recommended as the “most environmentally friendly”, considering carbon emissions when comparing the options.

Suggested Citation

  • Mihai Gosta & Mihai Fofiu & Imola Kirizsan, 2024. "Comparison Regarding the Carbon Footprint of Various Sustainable Seismic Consolidation Solutions for Romanian Orthodox Churches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-14, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:3979-:d:1391471
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/3979/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/3979/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rossella Salerno, 2023. "Representation and Visualization Processes for a Sustainable Approach to Landscape/Heritage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-12, 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.

      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:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:3979-:d:1391471. 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.