Next Article in Journal
How Does the Carbon Emission Trading Scheme Reshape Corporate Green Innovation? Evidence from China’s Pilot Policy
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable PVA/Cellulose Nanocrystal-Based Proton Exchange Membranes for Potential Application in Glucose Biofuel Cells
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 18
Issue 15
10.3390/su18157954
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The BIM Model as a Tool Supporting LCA Analysis in the Revitalization of Degraded Areas

by
Marta Fąfara
1,*,
Julia Mytnik
1 and
Łukasz Łukaszewski
2
1
Faculty of Architecture, Cracow University of Technology, 24 Warszawska Street, 31-155 Krakow, Poland
2
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Cracow University of Technology, 24 Warszawska Street, 31-155 Krakow, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(15), 7954; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18157954
Submission received: 27 May 2026 / Revised: 24 July 2026 / Accepted: 30 July 2026 / Published: 5 August 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This article examines the integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to support sustainable revitalization of post-industrial areas, using the “Pralfa” Factory in Tarnów, Poland, as a case study. Under increasing environmental and investment pressures, demolition decisions require comprehensive assessment of their environmental consequences. BIM enables the generation and comparison of design scenarios at the conceptual stage, supporting informed decision-making. LCA of the “Pralfa” Factory showed that demolition would generate approximately 195,100 kg CO2e. Two revitalization scenarios were evaluated: (1) construction using reclaimed materials recovered from demolished buildings and (2) construction using only new materials. The results demonstrated that demolition and the production of new materials substantially increase environmental impacts, while material reuse significantly reduces embodied emissions. The study confirms that BIM–LCA integration effectively supports sustainable design decisions and circular economy strategies. Its scientific contribution lies in extending BIM–LCA analysis to the end-of-life stages (C1–C4) of non-listed post-industrial buildings, addressing a gap in previous research focused mainly on new construction and stages A1–B7. The proposed workflow provides a transferable decision-support framework for circular revitalization and selective demolition planning.

1. Introduction

Post-industrial areas, especially those degraded, located in city centers, are too often subjected to demolition pressure. Meanwhile, demolitions are increasingly perceived as ecological losses, as well as the erasure of local identity and cultural and social values [1]. Buildings evolve over time, and each transformation leaves visible or hidden traces within the structural fabric or beneath layers of plaster. These traces constitute an echo not only of the time of construction but also provide information about the building’s history, the passage of time, and technological development [2]. In the context of this article, the term degraded areas refers to post-industrial sites, commonly known as brownfields, i.e., former industrial, manufacturing, or commercial areas that have lost their original function, become neglected, and are affected by technical deterioration and environmental contamination. In the Polish legal and planning framework, degraded areas are defined as areas in a state of crisis resulting from the concentration of technical, environmental, economic, or spatial-functional problems [3]. It is worth emphasizing that many historic buildings were constructed using natural materials, characterized by a lower environmental impact compared to contemporary construction products. These materials are associated with so-called embodied carbon, understood as the total greenhouse gas emissions “stored” within the existing building structure. Life cycle assessments indicate that the material production stage generates the largest share of emissions in the overall environmental balance of a building [4,5]. For the adaptation and modernization of industrial buildings, the share of embodied emissions can range from 38.7% to 84.3% of the total balance, particularly when the upgraded building demonstrates relatively low operational energy consumption [6].
Research on industrial heritage confirms that among the factors considered in building renovation and area revitalization, project-related carbon emissions are becoming increasingly important. Therefore, the renovation of existing buildings and the regeneration of urban fabric have been recognized as key strategies for reducing the environmental impact of the construction sector [7]. In Poland, the protection of historic buildings is regulated by the Act on the Protection and Care of Monuments. In addition, conservation assessments are guided by international doctrinal documents, including the Venice Charter and the Nara Document on Authenticity. These legal and conservation frameworks apply to buildings listed in the national register of monuments, restricting their demolition and imposing conservation requirements. However, many post-industrial buildings of considerable historical and cultural significance, including the “Pralfa” Factory analyzed in this study, are not protected under this legal framework. It is important to highlight that the demolition and disposal of old buildings constitute an additional—and often unnecessary—action that also negatively affects the environment. The demolition process itself is associated with significant greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions accumulate further when combined with the even greater emissions generated during the construction of a new building. As demonstrated by a study conducted by the Preservation Green Lab on the environmental benefits of building reuse compared to new construction, emission reductions resulting from reuse can reach up to 46%, depending on location, building type, and energy efficiency levels [8]. The restoration of valuable inner-city post-industrial areas through thoughtful adaptation—aligning new building functions with the needs of the local community—is considered part of sustainable development policy. Each decision should be tailored to the specific context and based on extensive research and analysis, also to avoid exposing future users to risks such as structural failure of unstable or moisture-damaged buildings. Decisions to demolish and construct new buildings should not be made hastily, both in terms of sustainable development policy and the preservation of the site’s cultural identity [9,10]. This creates a need for tools that enable effective assessment of the feasibility and rationality of such projects. The BIM model, particularly at the stage of analyzing the existing structure undergoing revitalization, significantly enhances this process.
This study focuses on verifying the effectiveness of integrating BIM—LCA methods in generating information required for the analysis of existing building assets and for planning interventions in accordance with the principles of the circular economy. The scope of the research includes the assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the end-of-life stage of the building (modules C1–C4) and the estimation of carbon emission compensation expressed as the equivalent number of trees and the forest area required to offset these emissions. Another important aspect of the study is the evaluation of the material circularity potential of the existing structures and the identification of opportunities for material reuse and recovery. In addition, a comparative analysis of two revitalization scenarios was carried out. In Scenario 1, new buildings are constructed using reclaimed and reused materials recovered from the section of the “Pralfa” Factory designated for demolition. In Scenario 2, the new buildings are constructed exclusively from new materials. This comparison made it possible to evaluate the environmental consequences of different material choices and to demonstrate the range of information provided by the integrated BIM–LCA approach when selecting between the preservation, recovery, or replacement of individual building components.
The need to focus on these issues in this article is justified by the increasing formalization of LCA requirements in European legislation. According to the recast Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) [11], EU Member States are required to implement the calculation and disclosure of global warming potential over the entire life cycle for new buildings larger than 1000 m2 from 1 January 2028, and for all new buildings from 1 January 2030. To achieve the objectives of the 2024 EPBD, policymakers should complement recent legislative progress with concrete implementation tools, mandating embodied carbon assessments alongside operational indicators from the earliest design stages [12,13]. Furthermore, LCA analysis constitutes an integral component of environmental certification systems such as LEED, BREEAM, DGNB, GRESB, and GLA/RICS. Although these certification schemes are voluntary in Poland, they are being adopted with increasing frequency, particularly in large-scale construction projects.
A critical review of the literature confirms that BIM–LCA integration has matured mainly around new buildings and the design, construction and operation phases (A1–B7). In their critical review of BIM-based LCA methods, Soust-Verdaguer, Llatas and García-Martínez [14] showed that most applications are simplified assessments centered on CO2 estimation during the early design stage of new buildings. This conclusion is corroborated by the systematic review of Potrč Obrecht, Röck, Hoxha and Passer [15], who reported that the end-of-life modules are frequently omitted and that data exchange between BIM and LCA tools remains only partially automated. Safari and AzariJafari [16] further identified the interoperability of BIM and LCA and the reliability of end-of-life inventory data as the principal methodological barriers to reliable results. At the same time, Röck et al. [17], analyzing more than 200 buildings worldwide, demonstrated that embodied greenhouse-gas emissions—precisely those most relevant to demolition decisions—already dominate the life-cycle balance of energy-efficient buildings, exceeding 90% in extreme cases. Against this background, the specific characteristics of post-industrial buildings—incomplete documentation, uncertainty regarding material data, the complexity of selective demolition, and the lack of BIM information on dismantling, recycling and reuse—remain largely unresolved. The existing literature therefore lacks integrated BIM–LCA methodologies dedicated to existing buildings, selective demolition and waste-management scenarios, which defines a clear research gap in the environmental assessment of the C1–C4 life-cycle stages of post-industrial buildings. In the Polish context, comparative LCA at the building scale has been demonstrated by the present authors, who benchmarked the carbon footprint of alternative residential construction methods and confirmed the decisive role of material choice in the environmental balance [18]; that work, however, addressed new residential buildings rather than the end-of-life stages of existing post-industrial fabric, which further underlines the gap the present study aims to close.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials, Data Sources and Software Tools

The materials supporting the implementation of the BIM model for LCA analysis comprise three groups: (1) input data describing the existing complex—a site survey, in situ dimensional measurements, archival design drawings and photographic documentation; (2) software tools—the BIM authoring environment Archicad 28, used to build a parametric 3-D model of the existing structures with element-level material assignment (Level of Development ≥ 300), and One Click LCA educational version, used as the life-cycle assessment engine and the bridge for automated quantity take-off from the BIM model; (3) reference data and standards—Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) datasets and the generic Ecoinvent database, which supply the emission factors, together with the normative framework of EN 15978 [19] and EN 15804+A2 [20] and the general LCA principles of ISO 14040/14044 [21,22].

2.2. Methodological Framework

The method is organized as a five-module workflow (Figure 1). Module 1 (data acquisition and inventory) collects survey, measurement and archival data and, through a technical-condition assessment (PN-EN 1990 [23], PN-EN 1504-9 [24]), produces a reliable material and geometric inventory. Module 2 (BIM modeling) transforms this inventory into a parametric ArchiCAD model and exports it via IFC. Module 3 (quantity take-off) uses One Click LCA to extract material volumes and areas per building element and maps them to EPD/generic datasets. Module 4 (LCA calculation engine) computes the end-of-life impact (modules C1–C4), expressing the global warming potential in kg CO2e per element and stage in accordance with EN 15978 [19] and EN 15804+A2 [20]. Module 5 (interpretation and scenario comparison) converts the results into biological indicators (trees/forest area), assesses material-circularity potential, and compares Scenario 1 (reuse of reclaimed materials) with Scenario 2 (new materials only), thereby providing decision support for the choice between demolition and adaptive reuse.
The study was conducted using the former “Pralfa” Factory complex in Tarnów as a case study. Its objective was to evaluate the applicability of Building Information Modeling (BIM) as a tool supporting Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in urban regeneration projects. The analysis focused exclusively on environmental aspects, while economic and technical issues were excluded due to their reliance on different assessment methods and evaluation criteria. This approach reflects the specific nature of regeneration projects, where decisions regarding the preservation, adaptation, or demolition of existing buildings have significant environmental consequences, even though they may not always be the most economically advantageous.
The first stage of the research included a site survey, an assessment of the technical condition of the existing buildings, and an analysis of the contemporary functional needs of the study area. Based on these investigations, a BIM model of the existing factory complex was developed, enabling a detailed material inventory and the quantification of individual building components. The BIM model served as the primary source of data for the subsequent environmental analyses. In the next stage, the One Click LCA educational version software was used to extract material data directly from the BIM model. Information on the quantities of individual construction materials was obtained and subsequently used as input for the life cycle assessment. The calculations were performed in accordance with the methodologies specified in EN 15978 [19] and EN 15804+A2 [20], which provide the framework for life cycle-based environmental assessment of buildings. The LCA focused on greenhouse gas emissions associated with the end-of-life stage (modules C1–C4), including deconstruction, waste transportation, waste processing, and disposal. The objective was to quantify the environmental impacts of demolishing the existing structures and to identify the potential environmental benefits of their preservation. To improve the interpretability of the results, the calculated carbon emissions were converted into biological indicators expressed as the equivalent number of trees and the forest area required to offset the generated carbon footprint. This approach translated abstract CO2-equivalent values into more intuitive and spatially meaningful environmental indicators, enabling a clearer comparison between the environmental impact and the size of the study area. Based on the results of the environmental assessment, the technical condition of the buildings, and their adaptive reuse potential, a regeneration concept was developed that prioritized the maximum possible retention of the existing structures. Demolition was limited to buildings that were in poor technical condition or lacked adaptation potential. At the same time, the material circularity potential of the existing buildings was evaluated by identifying components and materials suitable for reuse, recovery, or recycling.
The final stage of the study consisted of a comparative analysis of two regeneration scenarios. In Scenario 1, materials recovered from the buildings designated for demolition were reused in the construction of new buildings. In Scenario 2, the new buildings were constructed exclusively from new materials. Comparing these scenarios made it possible to evaluate the influence of material selection on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and to quantify the environmental benefits of implementing circular economy strategies. Finally, the obtained results were compared with findings from comparable national and international studies addressing adaptive reuse, demolition, and new construction scenarios. This comparison, presented in Section 4, places the “Pralfa” Factory case study in Tarnów within the broader context of current research on sustainable building regeneration.

3. Results

3.1. The “Pralfa” Factory in Tarnów, Poland—Background

The factory occupies an area of approximately 2 hectares, while the total usable floor area of the entire building complex is approximately 8300 m2. It is located in southern Poland, in the central part of Tarnów, about a 10 min walk from the Main Square and only 4 min from the main campus of the Tarnów Academy. The site represents one of the most attractively located post-industrial areas in the city. The plant began operations in 1952, specializing in the production of industrial laundry machines. The architectural design of the facility was developed by a state industrial design office during the communist period in Poland and is not attributed to any specific well-known architect. During its period of peak development, the enterprise was one of the most modern industrial facilities in Tarnów, employing approximately 300 workers. The economic transformation after 1989, however, led to a gradual deterioration of the company’s financial situation. Attempts to change the production profile and subsequent privatization efforts did not yield the expected results, ultimately leading to the plant’s liquidation in 2003. Since then, the site has remained unused and has been subject to progressive degradation. Currently, the main barrier limiting the regeneration process is the unresolved ownership status. The buildings are not maintained, and ongoing technical deterioration combined with intensive vegetation succession has led to further decline in their condition. Despite its highly attractive location, the area remains an underutilized urban asset, a spatial barrier, and a potentially hazardous site. The entire complex is heavily overgrown with ruderal vegetation and self-seeded plants, which are present both between the buildings, inside them, and on the roofs. As a result, the structures are currently barely visible from street level and are largely concealed within the landscape.

3.2. BIM as a Tool Supporting LCA Analysis in the “Pralfa“ Factory

Based on photographic documentation (Figure 2), archival materials, and in situ measurements, a BIM model was developed (Figure 3). Analysis of archival drawings indicates that the buildings were constructed independently over an extended period. The survey further revealed that the structures exhibit a variety of structural systems and were erected using diverse construction materials.
Using One Click LCA, data on the volumes of each building element and construction material were extracted in order to obtain the required input parameters. These materials are listed below in Table 1 with their quantities in the current state, expressed in volumetric units [m3]. The data were subsequently entered into an LCA calculator [25,26], in accordance with the methodology defined in EN 15978 [19] and EN 15804+A2 [20]. The methodological framework for building assessment is primarily established by these standards. According to EN 15978 [19], the building life cycle is divided into modules: the product stage (A1–A3), the construction process stage (A4–A5), the use stage (B1–B7), and the end-of-life stage (C1–C4). Optionally, module D is included, representing benefits and loads beyond the system boundary, encompassing the potential benefits of reuse, recycling and energy recovery.
The results are indicated in Table 2, that the demolition of the entire building complex and the hardened surfaces on the site would result in the re-emission of approximately 195,100 kg CO2e. For comparison, the literature suggests that carbon emissions associated with the construction and demolition phases account for approximately 12–18% of a building’s total carbon emissions [27]. The largest share of this value is attributed to waste processing and disposal processes (C3–C4), which account for 55.5% of total emissions, while deconstruction (C1) accounts for 22.8%, and transport (C2) for 21.7%.

3.3. Environmental Indicators Expressed as the Equivalent Number of Forest Area

It is noteworthy that emissions associated with the end-of-life phase (~5.5%) are more than twice as high as those generated during the construction phase itself (~2.7%), while emissions from material production are clearly dominant (~91.8%). The conversion of emissions into biological tree-equivalent metrics is a common practice in scientific communication, intended to illustrate the magnitude of the phenomenon. However, it requires methodological rigor: the CO2 sequestration capacity of trees varies significantly depending on species, age, and site conditions. With the exception of Scots pine established under harsh conditions, all analyzed tree species offset emissions associated with seedling production within 16 years [28]. A clear correlation was observed between the compensation period and the growth rate of the species. For the purposes of this study, CO2 sequestration rates reported in the scientific literature were analyzed, and a conservative value of 23 kg CO2 per tree per year was adopted for a mixed urban tree stand.
Surface-based comparison: The forest area required to offset emissions from demolition alone (assuming a reference value of ~23 kg CO2 per tree per year) would be approximately 2.65 times larger than the area occupied by the “Pralfa” Factory, graphical representation in Figure 4. The total site area (~2 ha) represents only 37.7% of the required forest area (~5.3 ha). This result is particularly significant, as it pertains exclusively to the C1–C4 phase, without accounting for emissions associated with any potential new construction on the same site.

3.4. Revitalization Concept for the “Pralfa” Factory

Based on a site inspection, a technical analysis of the condition of the existing buildings, the identification of contemporary functional requirements of the area, and a BIM model that enabled the precise quantification and classification of existing construction materials, key design decisions were made. These included the demolition of buildings in poor technical condition and with limited potential for adaptive reuse, as well as the preservation of buildings with functional and esthetic value (Figure 5). The complex consists of eight buildings of varying sizes, as well as remnants of an external roof structure. The dominant structure is a single-story, five-bay production hall (a) with an area of approximately 4000 m2, constructed of brick, reinforced concrete beams, and steel frames, with an added two-story administrative and storage building. The second largest structure is an open storage hall of approximately 900 m2 and a height of about 11 m, made of precast reinforced concrete elements, with an adjacent two-story masonry building (b). In the northern part of the site and along the streets, there are also single-story storage buildings constructed of concrete blocks and ceramic bricks. In the central part of the site, there is a small but tall brick building with two chimneys (up to approximately 25 m in height), which serve as spatial landmarks (c). In the southern part, there are unused buildings with damaged roofs, including a steel hall structure and a masonry extension. The remaining development is supplemented by smaller auxiliary buildings (d).
In the case of the “Pralfa” Factory revitalization project, an expansion strategy was adopted, integrating existing structures with newly designed elements while reusing and exposing reclaimed materials. It was decided to preserve the largest and best-preserved structures, representing the industrial heritage of the 1950s. The core of the concept is the existing five-bay post-industrial building, in which a canteen, workshop, and coworking spaces were designed. Each existing structure was assigned an individual function, minimizing intervention in the original fabric.
New student housing buildings were inserted between the existing structures. As a result, the project envisions the creation of a multifunctional building complex with attractive public spaces, including green parks and areas for social interaction, recreation, and work. Visualization and design concept are shown in Figure 6.

3.5. Assessment of Material Circularity Potential

Based on detailed quantitative and dimensional data on materials, the environmental potential of material reuse and recycling within the “Pralfa” Factory was assessed, presented in Table 3. The application of Circular Economy (CE) principles in the renovation of existing buildings is increasingly recognized as essential for achieving European climate targets, as less than 40% of construction and demolition waste is reused or recycled in most regions of the world [29]. It enables the analysis of multiple design pathways and supports the selection of the most optimal solutions for a given context. A review based on the Web of Science database identified over 23,000 publications related to BIM software and LCA tools, confirming the increasing interdisciplinarity of this field [15,30].

3.6. Comparative Analysis of Two Revitalization Scenarios

A comparative analysis of two revitalization scenarios for the “Pralfa” Factory was conducted. The comparative analysis contrasts two potential revitalization scenarios. It is based on the adopted revitalization concept, which assumes the preservation of selected buildings due to their technical condition and social value, as well as the demolition of selected buildings due to low historical value and poor technical condition. The first scenario assumes the reuse of materials obtained from the demolition of the part of the “Pralfa” factory designated for removal and their reuse in new development. The second scenario assumes the use of only new materials for the construction of the new development. Tables were organized (Table 4). For each identified material, a technical condition assessment was carried out in accordance with PN-EN 1504-9 [24], the Regulation on Technical Conditions of Buildings (Journal of Laws 2022, item 1225), and Eurocode 0 (PN-EN 1990 [23]), enabling the assignment of a percentage degradation level to each element, representing its degree of deterioration and the required extent of replacement. The determination of service life consumption was based on the principles of service life planning according to ISO 15686-1/-2/-8 [35,36,37]. On this basis, and in accordance with the Polish Revitalization Act of 2015 (Journal of Laws 2015, item 1777), a “refillable” indicator was defined to describe the extent of new material input required to restore the building. A material utility correction factor was also introduced, where a higher value indicates greater suitability of a material from the perspective of reuse strategies. This factor is linked to the assessment of recycling potential carried out in accordance with PN-EN 206+A2 [38] and its national supplement PN-B-06265 [39], which regulate the permissible share of recycled aggregates (Type A ≥ 90%, Type B ≥ 50%).
In the CO2 emission analysis, changes in material production technologies since their original application were taken into account. Technological progress has reduced the energy intensity and emissions of modern materials compared to traditional production methods, which was reflected as a percentage reduction differentiating individual material groups (2–30%). The quantification of the carbon footprint was conducted in accordance with PN-EN 15978 [19] and PN-EN 15804+A2 [20], while emission factors are based on Life Cycle Assessment (PN-EN ISO 14040/14044 [21,22]) principles.
As a description of Table 4: Scenario 1 reports the total CO2e balance obtained when embodied emissions stored in the retained structure are combined with the emissions of newly added materials; Scenario 2 reports the CO2e emissions of an equivalent newly designed building, reduced by 5% to account for more advanced contemporary material-production technologies. In the balance column, positive values [+] denote emissions and negative values [−] denote carbon storage/embodied carbon.
Figure 7 illustrates the material reuse cycle derived from demolition waste and its reapplication in a new structure, assuming an appropriate percentage share of the usability of recovered materials. After conducting a detailed inventory and developing a BIM model, structures that were in poor technical condition were identified and selected for demolition. The recovered rubble was subsequently reused as a component of concrete mixes, both structural and non-structural. The diagram presented illustrates the quantity of recycled materials obtained and the ways in which they were later reused within the project. The rubble was used as aggregate for recycled concrete and, according to the calculations, the amount recovered is sufficient to construct the entire structural system of the new student dormitory buildings.
In addition, reclaimed materials were also applied as finishing elements for façades and pavements. As part of the overall revitalization concept for the “Pralfa” Factory in Tarnów, recycled aggregate accounts for 49.2% of the total consumption in structural concrete and 30% in non-structural concrete. The reclaimed solid brick was reused for interior flooring, utilizing 29% of the available material. Meanwhile, the ceramic hollow blocks, employed as a key decorative motif in the exterior spaces, were reused in their entirety.

4. Discussion

In light of the presented research and contemporary environmental and urban challenges, it is reasonable to conclude that greater attention should be paid to the potential for revitalization and the reuse of materials in the design process. Considering that so-called embodied carbon, generated during the material production and construction phases, can—according to published studies—account for 40% to even 60% of a building’s total life-cycle carbon footprint [17], the preservation of all or part of the existing building stock appears to be a strategy with high emission-reduction potential. This is confirmed by the conducted case study of the revitalization of the “Pralfa” Factory in Tarnów, which demonstrated that the demolition of this building complex could result in potential re-emissions of as much as 195,100 kg CO2e. To compensate for such emissions, it would be necessary to plant approximately 8500 trees, which, forming a forest, would occupy a total area of around 5.3 hectares—equivalent to 265% of the site area occupied by the Factory complex. The comparison of the two scenarios demonstrated a significant impact of material-related decisions on the level of greenhouse gas emissions. The difference between the variants amounted to 5046.63 tonnes of CO2e. The scenario assuming the reuse of materials recovered from demolished structures achieved a result of −1961.64 tonnes of CO2e, whereas the variant based solely on new materials generated 3085.00 tonnes of CO2e.
The results confirm that material reuse can significantly reduce the carbon footprint of an investment and constitutes an effective tool for implementing circular economy principles. To substantiate the scientific novelty of these results, they were compared with specific values obtained by other researchers. The magnitude of the avoided end-of-life emissions found here (≈195,100 kg CO2e for the C1–C4 stages alone) is consistent with the whole-building comparison of Hasik et al. [7], who reported that renovation reduced environmental impacts by roughly 53–75% relative to new construction. For industrial and adaptive-reuse cases, Huang et al. [40] quantified savings of about 55% (≈352 vs. 785 kg CO2e/m2) for the Coal Drops Yard scheme, while Besana and Tirelli [41] reported up to ≈91% embodied-carbon reduction for the reuse of an abandoned building in Milan; at the urban scale, Sobieraj et al. [42] documented ≈48,217 t CO2 and 72,315 t of waste avoided through the revitalization of the Radex Park Marywilska complex in Warsaw. The dominance of embodied over operational emissions reported by Röck et al. [17] explains why our reuse scenario (−1961.64 t CO2e) outperforms the new-material scenario (+3085.00 t CO2e) by 5046.63 t CO2e. These converging results confirm that the integrated BIM–LCA of the C1–C4 stages proposed here yields reductions in the same order of magnitude as those independently reported in the international literature, while extending the approach to non-listed post-industrial buildings.
In order to place the revitalization case of the “Pralfa” Factory in a broader research context, a comparative analysis titled Comparative Analysis of CO2e Emissions: Demolition and New Construction Scenario versus Adaptive Reuse and Revitalization (Table 5) was conducted. This analysis made it possible to compare the results obtained for the studied facility with those of analogous studies concerning demolition and new construction as well as the adaptive reuse of existing structures. In a synthetic and illustrative way, it presents the environmental benefits resulting from the preservation and adaptation of existing buildings, highlighting the potential for CO2e emission reductions and environmental savings associated with limiting the use of new construction materials.
Several limitations of the conducted study should be acknowledged. First, the LCA analysis was primarily focused on the end-of-life stage of the building (C1–C4). This approach was justified by the aim of the study, which was to assess the environmental consequences of decisions regarding demolition or retention of existing structures. However, a more comprehensive understanding of environmental impacts would require the inclusion of all life cycle stages, including the product stage (A1–A3), the construction process (A4–A5), and the use phase (B1–B7). Another limitation is the use of emission factors available in the One Click LCA tool, derived from EPD databases and generic environmental databases such as Ecoinvent. These data represent average values for specific groups of materials and technologies, rather than parameters specific to individual manufacturers or local supply chains. Consequently, the obtained results should be regarded as approximate values, suitable primarily for comparative analyses and as decision-support tools in the design process. A further limitation of the study is its exclusive focus on the environmental dimension of the revitalization process, without an in-depth analysis of social and economic aspects. Given the complex nature of adaptive reuse projects, the assessment of the economic feasibility of the proposed solutions—particularly strategies for material recovery and reuse—would require the development of a detailed cost estimate and the conduct of separate economic and social analyses.
These limitations simultaneously define directions for future research. In future studies, it would be advisable to extend LCA analyses to include the remaining modules of the building life cycle and to integrate BIM models with the Historic Building Information Modeling (HBIM) methodology, which enables accurate representation of existing structures together with their material composition. The scan-to-BIM process allows for the creation of digital twins of buildings, serving not only a documentation function but, more importantly, an analytical one. HBIM is an effective tool supporting architectural heritage management by integrating geometric and semantic data and enabling more informed design decisions. In practice, it allows for the comparison of scenarios ranging from full demolition through partial deconstruction to comprehensive adaptation and modernization [47]. It is also worth considering further research into the advanced application of HBIM combined with artificial intelligence and machine learning for automatic material recognition, assessment of structural condition based on images and scanning data, as well as optimization of design scenarios and material use.

5. Conclusions

The example of the analyzed building confirms that demolition decisions may be associated with very high environmental costs, which are often underestimated at the investment planning stage. Meanwhile, the reuse of existing materials and the adaptation of structures can significantly reduce the consumption of virgin raw materials and energy. The integration of BIM and LCA provides precise data on the carbon footprint, based on standards, the technical condition of the building, and the potential for material reuse, enabling objective optimization of revitalization decisions. In environmental terms, the BIM model delivers detailed quantitative data that directly feeds into the LCA calculator, allowing the identification of materials with the highest reuse potential and the avoidance of emissions associated with demolition and the production of new materials. This integration enables the simulation of various design scenarios—from full demolition to comprehensive adaptive reuse—and supports the selection of the option with the lowest environmental impact, in line with circular economy principles and the requirements of the EPBD (2024/1275). These scenarios allow for a transparent comparison of the consequences of each strategy and an assessment of the measurable impact of individual decisions on CO2 emissions.
In the social context, the integration of BIM and LCA supports the preservation of place identity and cultural continuity, providing a basis for the protection of non-listed industrial heritage assets under demolition pressure. A precise assessment of the technical condition reduces the risk of structural failure and ensures the safety of future users, while recovered and visually exposed materials create a narrative linking the industrial past with the new function of the building.
Multifunctional adaptive reuse programs developed on the basis of these analyses transform abandoned post-industrial areas into inclusive community centers, generating social value through the creation of spaces for interaction, learning, and activity. In the future, these simulations may be extended to include an economic dimension, including life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis in accordance with ISO 15686-5 [48], which goes beyond the scope of the present study and constitutes a direction for further research. As Rebecca Volk et al. [49] emphasize, the use of BIM in existing buildings significantly improves information management and supports decision-making processes in the context of renovation and adaptation. In summary, careful revitalization and adaptation of the existing building stock, supported by BIM and LCA analyses, constitutes the foundation of responsible design. Prioritizing renovation and material reuse not only reduces environmental impact but also enables the preservation of cultural continuity and place identity. In the face of growing climate challenges and limited natural resources, this approach should become a standard in architectural and urban design practice.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.F. and J.M.; methodology, M.F. and J.M.; software, J.M.; validation, M.F. and J.M. formal analysis, M.F.; investigation, M.F. and J.M.; resources, M.F. and Ł.Ł.; data curation, M.F. and J.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.F. and J.M.; writing—review and editing, M.F., J.M. and Ł.Ł.; visualization, J.M. and Ł.Ł.; supervision, M.F.; project administration, M.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are datasets that were accessed via commercial LCA software. These source datasets cannot be made publicly available due to confidentiality and licensing restrictions. All derived datasets required to reproduce the reported results, including the values underlying all tables and figures, are available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license at Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20339476.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Turek, A. Revitalization of brownfield sites for residential use. Urban Dev. Issues 2013, 1, 71–86. [Google Scholar]
  2. Cramer, J.; Breitling, S. Architecture in Existing Fabric; Birkhäuser Verlag AG: Basel, Switzerland, 2007; pp. 15–19. [Google Scholar]
  3. Act of 9 October 2015 on Revitalization. J. Laws 2015, 1777, 9.
  4. Azari, R.; Abbasabadi, N. Embodied energy of buildings: A review of data, methods, challenges, and research trends. Energy Build. 2018, 168, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Simonen, K.; Rodriguez, B.L.; De Wolf, C. Benchmarking the embodied carbon of buildings. Technol. Archit. Des. 2017, 1, 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, G.; Luo, T.; Luo, H.; Liu, R.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Z. A comprehensive review of building lifecycle carbon emissions and reduction approaches. City Built Environ. 2024, 2, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hasik, V.; Escott, E.; Bates, R.; Carlisle, S.; Faircloth, B.; Bilec, M.M. Comparative whole-building life cycle assessment of renovation and new construction. Build. Environ. 2019, 161, 106218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Preservation Green Lab; Frey, P.; Dunn, L.; Cochrane, R. The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse. 2011. Available online: https://living-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/The_Greenest_Building.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2026).
  9. Zawada-Pęgiel, K.; Duliński, W.; Bystroń, M.; Taczalska-Ryniak, A. Architectural sustainability through adaptive reuse: Design challenges and opportunities in the transformation of mid-to-late 20th century hotel buildings in Poland. Sustainability 2026, 18, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lim, H. Comparative life cycle assessment of reconstruction and renovation for carbon reduction in buildings. Buildings 2025, 15, 3388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive (EU) 2024/1275 of April 24, 2024, on the energy performance of buildings (recast). Official Journal of the European Union, 24 April 2024. [CrossRef]
  12. Lally, P.; Little, J.; Rebow, M.; Ahern, C. Dynamic life cycle assessment of staged energy retrofits: Evaluating time-variant carbon emissions in decarbonising pathways. Energy Build. 2026, 352, 116872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zima, K.; Wieczorek, D.; Grącka, A. Ecological life cycle analysis (LCA) on the example of materials used in warehouse buildings. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2025, 71, 11–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Llatas, C.; García-Martínez, A. Critical review of BIM-based LCA method to buildings. Energy Build. 2017, 136, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Obrecht, T.P.; Röck, M.; Hoxha, E.; Passer, A. BIM and LCA integration: Systematic review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Safari, K.; AzariJafari, H. Challenges and opportunities for integrating BIM and LCA: Methodological choices and framework development. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 67, 102728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Röck, M.; Ruschi Mendes Saade, M.; Balouktsi, M.; Rasmussen, F.N.; Birgisdóttir, H.; Frischknecht, R.; Habert, G.; Lützkendorf, T.; Passer, A. Embodied GHG emissions of buildings—The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Appl. Energy 2020, 258, 114107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fąfara, M.; Łukaszewski, Ł.; Owczarek, E.; Źrebiec, I. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and environmental comparison of the selected construction methods of residential buildings in traditional and straw cubes technology—A case study. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2022, 68, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. EN 15978; Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings—Requirements and Guidance. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2026.
  20. EN 15804+A2:2019; Sustainability of Construction Works—Environmental Product Declarations—Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
  21. ISO 14040:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  22. ISO 14044:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  23. PN-EN 1990:2024-04; Eurocode—Basis of Structural and Geotechnical Design. Polish Committee for Standardization (Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny, PKN): Warsaw, Poland, 2024.
  24. PN-EN 1504-9:2010; Products and Systems for the Protection and Repair of Concrete Structures—Definitions, Requirements, Quality Control and Evaluation of Conformity—Part 9: General Principles for the Use of Products and Systems. Polish Committee for Standardization (Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny, PKN): Warsaw, Poland, 2010.
  25. Ge, S.; Zhang, X. Integration of BIM and LCA: A system to predict and optimise embodied carbon for prefabricated buildings. HKIE Trans. 2024, 30, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rodríguez, F.J.F.; Picardo, J.; Aguilar-Planet, A.; Martín-Mariscal, A.; Peralta, E. Data transfer reliability from BIM to LCA: A comparative case study. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, Y.; Ni, T.; He, B.; Xu, J. Life cycle environmental impact assessment of natural gas distributed energy system. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 3292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Rogers, C.D.F.; Grayson, N.; Sadler, J.P.; Chapman, L.; Bouch, C.J.; Cavada, M.; Leach, J.M. Delivering sustainable, resilient and liveable cities via transformed governance. Front. Sustain. Cities 2023, 5, 1171996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dervishaj, A.; Gudmundsson, K. Sunlight autonomy for buildings. Leukos 2025, 21, 34–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cheng, Q.; Tayeh, B.A.; Abu Aisheh, Y.I.; Alaloul, W.S.; Aldahdooh, Z.A. Leveraging BIM for sustainable construction. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nußholz, J.L.K.; Rasmussen, F.N.; Whalen, K.; Plepys, A. Material reuse in buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Blay-Armah, A.; Bahadori-Jahromi, A.; Mohebbi, G.; Mylona, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: An End-of-Life Perspective. In Life Cycle Assessment—Recent Advances and New Perspectives; Bányai, T., Veres, P., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zijlstra, S. One Click LCA Summer School. 2021. Available online: https://www.oneclicklca.com (accessed on 26 May 2026).
  34. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. Official Journal of the European Union, 19 November 2008.
  35. ISO 15686-1:2011; Buildings and Constructed Assets—Service Life Planning—Part 1: General Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
  36. ISO 15686-2:2012; Buildings and Constructed Assets—Service Life Planning—Part 2: Service Life Prediction Procedures. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2012.
  37. ISO 15686-8:2008; Buildings and Constructed Assets—Service-Life Planning—Part 8: Reference Service Life and Service-Life Estimation. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
  38. PN-EN 206+A2:2021-08; Concrete—Specification, Performance, Production and Conformity. Polish Committee for Standardization (Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny, PKN): Warsaw, Poland, 2021.
  39. PN-B-06265:2022-08; Concrete—Requirements, Performance, Production and Conformity—National Supplement to PN-EN 206+A2:2021-08. Polish Committee for Standardization (Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny, PKN): Warsaw, Poland, 2022.
  40. Huang, Y.; Wang, F.; Hiscock, A.V.; Satyarthi, J.; Smith, H. Including embodied carbon in assessing renovation options. Sustainability 2024, 17, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Besana, D.; Tirelli, D. Reuse and retrofitting strategies for a net zero carbon building in Milan. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sobieraj, J.; Fernandez, M.; Metelski, D. Economics of adaptive reuse. Buildings 2025, 15, 2828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lind, E.; Prade, T.; Sjöman Deak, J.; Levinsson, A.; Sjöman, H. How green is an urban tree? Front. Sustain. Cities 2023, 5, 1182408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. NewStudio Architecture. Adaptive Reuse and Embodied Carbon Case Studies. 2023. Available online: https://www.newstudioarchitecture.com/newstudio-insights/2023/1/12/adaptive-reuse-sustainable-architecture (accessed on 1 April 2026).
  45. Garrison, A. The Case for Adaptive Reuse Gensler. 2021. Available online: https://www.gensler.com/blog/the-link-adaptive-reuse-sustainable-design-downtown-denver (accessed on 1 April 2026).
  46. Moisio, M.; Huuhka, S.; Salmio, E.; Kaasalainen, T.; Lahdensivu, J. Climate change mitigation potential in building preservation. J. Archit. Conserv. 2024, 30, 129–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Santos, R.; Costa, A.; Silvestre, J.D.; Pyl, L. Integration of LCA and LCC in BIM. Autom. Constr. 2019, 103, 127–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. ISO 15686-5:2017; Buildings and Constructed Assets—Service-Life Planning—Part 5: Life-Cycle Costing. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  49. Volk, R.; Stengel, J.; Schultmann, F. BIM for existing buildings. Autom. Constr. 2014, 38, 109–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 18 07954 g001
Figure 1. Block diagram of the integrated BIM–LCA workflow, showing the five modules, their functions and implementation tools [17,20,23,24].
Figure 1. Block diagram of the integrated BIM–LCA workflow, showing the five modules, their functions and implementation tools [17,20,23,24].
Sustainability 18 07954 g001
Sustainability 18 07954 g002
Figure 2. View of the main building of “Pralfa” Factory.
Figure 2. View of the main building of “Pralfa” Factory.
Sustainability 18 07954 g002
Sustainability 18 07954 g003
Figure 3. BIM model of the building complex created in ArchiCAD 28.
Figure 3. BIM model of the building complex created in ArchiCAD 28.
Sustainability 18 07954 g003
Sustainability 18 07954 g004
Figure 4. The area of the “Pralfa” Factory site in Tarnów compared to the forest area accommodating approximately 8500 trees.
Figure 4. The area of the “Pralfa” Factory site in Tarnów compared to the forest area accommodating approximately 8500 trees.
Sustainability 18 07954 g004
Sustainability 18 07954 g005
Figure 5. Existing condition: buildings marked in red are designated for demolition (A); proposed condition: newly designed buildings are marked in brown (B).
Figure 5. Existing condition: buildings marked in red are designated for demolition (A); proposed condition: newly designed buildings are marked in brown (B).
Sustainability 18 07954 g005
Sustainability 18 07954 g006
Figure 6. Revitalization project of the Factory.
Figure 6. Revitalization project of the Factory.
Sustainability 18 07954 g006
Sustainability 18 07954 g007
Figure 7. Material flow, recovery, and reuse scheme.
Figure 7. Material flow, recovery, and reuse scheme.
Sustainability 18 07954 g007
Table 1. Construction materials identified within the facility relate to the analysis of the selected case study.
Table 1. Construction materials identified within the facility relate to the analysis of the selected case study.
MaterialQuantity [m3]
Ceramic brick1563
Structural steel5.4
Ceramic hollow blocks118
Metal sections/structural profiles30
Glass blocks22 m2
Concrete masonry units (CMU)415
Concrete1046
Precast concrete elements513
Reinforced concrete (RC)2047
Torch-on bituminous membrane (roofing)6470
Table 2. LCA results for the End-of-Life Phase Modules (C1–C4). Methodology: EN 15978:2011 [19]; Software Tool: One Click LCA.
Table 2. LCA results for the End-of-Life Phase Modules (C1–C4). Methodology: EN 15978:2011 [19]; Software Tool: One Click LCA.
LCA ModuleProcess DescriptionEmissions [kg CO2e]Share [%]Interpretation
C1Deconstruction and demolition of the building44,50022.8%Fuel consumption and operation
of demolition machinery
C2Transport of demolition waste to landfill or recycling facility42,30021.7%Emissions from heavy-duty transport
C3Processing of recyclable waste fractions108,30055.5%Dominant module—waste fraction processing
C4Disposal and landfilling of non-recyclable wasteincluded in C3—Non-recoverable fractions directed to landfill
totalTotal emissions—end-of-life stage~195,100100%Approximately 5.5% of the total life-cycle carbon footprint
Table 3. Environmental Potential of Building Material Reuse and Recycling.
Table 3. Environmental Potential of Building Material Reuse and Recycling.
MaterialQuantity [m3/m2]Recycling PotentialRecycling/Reuse MethodPriority LevelSource
Brick
masonry		1563 m3✔✔
High		Cleaning and direct reuse; brick powder; aggregate for terrazzo✔✔
priority		[31]
Reinforced concrete2047 m3✔
Moderate		Recycled aggregate for new concrete; road construction; terrazzo✔
advised		[32]
Cast-in-place concrete1046 m3✔
Moderate		Recycled aggregate; road construction✔
advised		[33]
Concrete blocks415 m3✔
Moderate		Recycled aggregate✔
advised		[30]
Structural steel5.4 m3✔✔✔
Very high		Recovery of reusable elements; remelting without loss of quality (>90% avoided emissions)✔✔✔
absolute priority		[31]
Metal sections30 m3✔✔✔
Very high		Recovery of elements; remelting✔✔✔
absolute priority		[33]
Ceramic
hollow blocks		118 m3✔✔
High		Cleaning; direct reuse; brick powder✔✔
priority		[31]
Glass blocks22 m2✔
Moderate		Glass concrete; composite materials✔
advised		[33]
Torch-on
membrane		6470 m2✘
Low		Disposal (multi-component material)✘
disposal		[34]
Table 4. Comparative analysis of two scenarios of revitalization the “Pralfa” Factory.
Table 4. Comparative analysis of two scenarios of revitalization the “Pralfa” Factory.
Material[m3/m2]IndicatorCO2
[tonne]		Element
Degradation [%]		Replacement [%]New
Material CO2e
[tonne]		Scenario 1
CO2e
[tonne]		Scenario 2
CO2e Minus 5%
[tonne] 		CO2e
Emitted [+] or
Accumulated
[−]
[tonne]
Brick masonry1563 m30.17261.000.400.10114.84−146.16247.95101.79
Reinforced concrete2047 m30.661350.000.300.12453.60−896.401255.50359.10
Cast-in-place concrete1046 m30.55574.000.250.05150.68−423.33516.6093.28
Concrete blocks415 m30.1458.000.200.2013.92−44.0853.369.28
Structural steel5.4 m314.2677.000.500.1042.35−34.6575.4640.81
Metal sections30 m318.87566.000.300.03174.89−391.11554.68163.57
Ceramic hollow blocks118 m30.4654.140.500.2032.48−21.6652.5230.86
Glass blocks22 m20.204.400.100.100.48−3.923.08−0.84
Torch-on membrane6470 m20.05343.000.900.11342.66−0.34325.85325.51
Precast concrete
elements		5130.67343.000.250.0892.61−250.39308.7058.31
total1418.51−1961.643085.001181.67
difference−5046.63
emitted [+] or accumulated [−]1123.36
Note. Material—material identified in factory; Indicator—a parameter describing a given characteristic of a material or process (e.g., usability, degradation level, or reuse potential); CO2e—greenhouse gas emissions expressed in tonnes of CO2 equivalent based on One Click LCA data; Element degradation level [%]—percentage level of deterioration of an element determined based on on-site inspection; Replacement amount (new material) [%]—quantity of material required for replacement, increased according to the degradation level and inclusion of new materials and additives; New material and its CO2e emissions—emissions associated with the production and use of new construction materials; Scenario 1: total CO2e comprising embodied emissions in the existing structure and emissions from newly added materials; Scenario 2: CO2e emissions of a newly designed building, reduced by 5% due to more advanced contemporary material production technologies; CO2e emitted [+] or accumulated [−] [tonne], comparison of solutions—CO2e balance, where positive values [+] indicate emissions and negative values [−] indicate carbon storage/embodied carbon.
Table 5. Comparative Analysis of CO2e Emissions: Demolition and New Construction Scenario versus Adaptive Reuse and Revitalization.
Table 5. Comparative Analysis of CO2e Emissions: Demolition and New Construction Scenario versus Adaptive Reuse and Revitalization.
Case StudyCountry/Building TypeDemolition + New ConstructionAdaptive Reuse/RevitalizationReduction [%]Source
“Pralfa” Factory,
Tarnów		Poland/Industrial complex, ~8300 m2~195,100 kg CO2e (C1–C4 only)0 kg CO2e (retention scenario)Avoidance of end-of-life emissions COwn study
Hotel BRDA,
Bydgoszcz		Polska/Hotel, mid-20th century~1,689,909 kg CO2e~80,120 kg CO2e~95%[9]
Historic building,
Zabrze		Poland/Historic adaptive reuseNew constructionAdaptive reuse~82%[43]
Coal Drops Yard,
Londyn		United Kingdom/Industrial complex~785 kg CO2e/m2~352 kg CO2e/m2; ~5852 t CO2e saved~55%[40]
Tower Mill,
Hawick		Scotland/Post-industrial buildingNew constructionRetention of existing structureSavings of ~4948 t CO2e[40]
CSU Lab BuildingCalifornia, USA/Laboratory buildingNew constructionStructural adaptation~78%[44]
Quay Quarter TowerSydney, Australia/High-rise towerFull demolition + new buildingAdaptive reuse—retention of ⅔ of the structure8250 t CO2e saved (~67%)[44]
Office building,
Denver		USA/Downtown office buildingNew constructionAdaptation of existing structure~68%[45]
1950s school building, FinlandiaFinland/Educational buildingNew construction (6 variants)Refurbishment (4 variants)Up to 296 kg CO2e/m2 avoided[46]
Reinforced concrete building, SeoulSouth Korea/Reinforced concrete structureReconstruction: 1.37 × 103 kg CO2e/m2Renovation~22.3% lower CO2e[10]
Radex Park MarywilskaWarsaw, Poland/Post-industrial complexNew construction (equivalent scenario)Revitalization of 4 buildings48,217 t CO2 and 72,315 t of waste avoided[42]
Building in MilanItaly/Abandoned buildingNew constructionReuse + biogenic materials~91% reduction in embodied carbon[41]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fąfara, M.; Mytnik, J.; Łukaszewski, Ł. The BIM Model as a Tool Supporting LCA Analysis in the Revitalization of Degraded Areas. Sustainability 2026, 18, 7954. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18157954

AMA Style

Fąfara M, Mytnik J, Łukaszewski Ł. The BIM Model as a Tool Supporting LCA Analysis in the Revitalization of Degraded Areas. Sustainability. 2026; 18(15):7954. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18157954

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fąfara, Marta, Julia Mytnik, and Łukasz Łukaszewski. 2026. "The BIM Model as a Tool Supporting LCA Analysis in the Revitalization of Degraded Areas" Sustainability 18, no. 15: 7954. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18157954

APA Style

Fąfara, M., Mytnik, J., & Łukaszewski, Ł. (2026). The BIM Model as a Tool Supporting LCA Analysis in the Revitalization of Degraded Areas. Sustainability, 18(15), 7954. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18157954

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop