# Sustainability in the Design of an Itinerant Cultural Exhibition. Study of Two Alternatives
## 3 Case Study
### Comparing Results  
The sustainability indicators obtained for the two exhibition alternatives are compared in Figure 4. Diagrams of the GWP\({}_{100}\), C\({}_{\text{E}}\), and T\({}_{\text{W}}\) indicators are shown in Figure 4a-c, in which the percentage distributions of different impact factors are shown. A set of factors was selected to express the impact distribution for each life cycle stage; some appeared with a slightly marked font because they could not be evaluated.  
Figure 3: Alternative 2: audiovisual exhibition. Inventory data (entire tour).  
Significant variations were observed in the indicators evaluated during the creation stage. In the case of the printed exhibition, the mass of materials required in the construction of the modular wall system is 4.1 tons. The audiovisual exhibition alternative does not need the subdivision of the exhibition space, and material requirements are considerably reduced. Thus, the incidence of different factors during the creation stage showed a notable decrease. GWP\({}_{100}\) and C\({}_{\text{E}}\) indicators reduce, respectively, 11.1 tons of CO\({}_{2}\)-eq and EUR 13,250, due to the obtainment of raw materials and manufacturing processes.  
Figure 4: Results comparison in the two exhibition alternatives.  
The use of a minor amount of material has a direct effect on transport activity. Transport of materials from warehouses and between destinations is included in the creation stage, and transport of materials to waste treatment facilities is included in the end-of-life stage. Fuel consumption, as well as costs and working times due to operations associated with the loading, transport, and unloading of materials, are reduced in the audiovisual exhibition alternative. If the entire tour is considered, GWP\({}_{100}\), C\({}_{\text{E}}\), and T\({}_{\text{W}}\) indicators are reduced, respectively, 2.2 tons of CO\({}_{2}\)-eq, EUR 6100, and 151 h.  
A significant increase in greenhouse emissions was observed in the audiovisual alternative during the provision stage. An increase of 8.9 tons of CO\({}_{2}\)-eq was evaluated in the GWP\({}_{100}\) indicator. Although the incidence of conditioning is higher in printed exhibitions because it requires appropriate lighting (content oriented), in contrast with the audiovisual alternative where a dark room is necessary, the energy consumption by equipment is considerably higher in the audiovisual exhibition. In addition, energy consumption affects the C\({}_{\text{E}}\) indicator. An increase of EUR 2200 is calculated. Nevertheless, execution costs in the provision stage depend mainly on the workforce factor, and this factor is not modified much in the two projected exhibition alternatives.  
Finally, in the end-of-life stage, sustainability indicators of the audiovisual alternative are also lower than those of the printed exhibition. As a smaller amount of materials is required, activities considered in this stage (disassembly, transport to treatment facilities, and deposition) cause lower impacts. Particularly, disassembly operations generate a reduction of EUR 5477 and 657 h in the C\({}_{\text{E}}\) and T\({}_{\text{W}}\) indicators, respectively.  
Comparing the total values of indicators for each sustainability dimension demonstrates that the impacts of audiovisual exhibitions are lower than those of printed exhibitions. Greenhouse emissions, execution costs, and working times are reduced, respectively, 4.4 tons of CO\({}_{2}\)-eq, EUR 25,173, and 1648 h, along the entire tour of the cultural service development; thus, a relative percentage reduction of 8.7%, 7%, and 6.6%, respectively, was obtained.