Cost and carbon often point the same way on a refurbishment: keeping what is already there avoids buying, making and transporting new material, so it tends to save both. Not always, though. Some low-carbon swaps carry a price premium, and a retained element can need repair that a new one would not. A construction cost circularity comparison is worth making early, when material decisions are still open, so the trade-off is one you choose rather than one you discover at tender.
This article explains what Elementa’s early cost estimates are and are not, how they sit next to carbon, and where the two Austrian standards people ask about, ÖNORM B 2061 and ÖNORM B 1801-1, actually fit. Every figure Elementa shows is an indicative estimate for comparison, not a quantity surveyor’s estimate or a certified carbon assessment.
The short version
- Elementa prices assemblies, not pathways: you choose an intervention for each assembly (for example retain and clean, refinish, or full overhaul with insulation on a facade), and Elementa multiplies a rate by a regional factor and the assembly’s quantity.
- The rates come from a versioned 2026 Austrian cost reference: expert estimates by LX Design Studio, based on Graz/Styria, with factors for five Austrian regions. Each rate states its uncertainty, mostly ±15–25 %.
- Six element types are covered, for new build and refurbishment: structure, facade, windows, interior partitions, floor finishes and ceilings. Roofs and doors have no reference rate and read “not costed”. The reference has no intervention for salvaging and relocating a component, so a reused element needs a quote you enter.
- Carbon factors (× baseline embodied carbon): Retain 0.05, Reuse 0.15, Refinish 0.40, New 1.00, Replace 1.10. These are carbon only; there is no per-pathway cost percentage.
- ÖNORM B 2061 is the Austrian procedure standard for calculating construction prices. Elementa does not perform a B 2061 price calculation, and its rates are not yet mapped to ÖNORM B 1801-1 cost areas.
Do cost and carbon move together across circularity pathways?
Often, yes. The two most circular pathways, retain and reuse, avoid most of the material that would otherwise be bought and manufactured, which is where both the cost and the embodied carbon of a new element sit. As operational energy decarbonises, embodied (upfront) carbon becomes a larger share of whole-life carbon (World Green Building Council, “Bringing Embodied Carbon Upfront”, 2019), which raises the stakes on these early calls.
Elementa’s own cost reference shows the same ordering on the cost side. For each of the six element types it covers in refurbishment, the light-touch interventions, such as retaining as is, cleaning, or refinishing a surface, carry lower rates than full replacement. That is an ordering within one reference table, not a guarantee for your building: condition, access and performance upgrades can change it.
It isn’t a perfect rule. The agreement breaks down around certain low-carbon products, and when a retained element needs substantial repair, which we’ll come to next.
How does Elementa estimate cost and carbon?
Carbon and cost are calculated separately and shown side by side.
Carbon. Each layer’s material carbon comes from the ÖKOBAUDAT generic dataset (EN 15804+A2, modules A1–A3) pinned to it; a layer with no dataset pinned stays unpriced and is left out of totals. Each element’s pathway then applies a carbon factor:
| Pathway | Carbon factor (× baseline) | Typical use |
|---|---|---|
| Retain | 0.05 | Keep an element in place, maintain as-is |
| Reuse | 0.15 | Relocate or repurpose on-site |
| Refinish | 0.40 | Re-surface, re-coat, or restore |
| Replace | 1.10 | Remove the element and fit a new equivalent |
| New | 1.00 | Entirely new material (the reference point) |
The pathway factors are Elementa’s own modelling conventions, not drawn from ÖKOBAUDAT or any published dataset. They encode a defensible ordering for early comparison, not a measurement.
Cost. Cost is priced per assembly, once across its material layers, not per pathway. For each assembly you select an intervention from the cost reference, and Elementa calculates:
rate × regional factor × quantity
- Rates are per m² of gross floor area for structure, per m² of component area for facades, partitions, floor finishes and ceilings, and per piece for windows.
- Regional factors cover Vienna, the Vienna suburbs, Graz/Styria (the base), Upper Austria and Vorarlberg. A project with no region chosen is not costed; there is no default.
- Uncertainty is stated per rate, mostly ±15–25 %. Elementa adds up each rate’s widest stated band into a conservative range and labels it with the weakest confidence level included.
- Your quote wins. A contractor or supplier price you enter replaces the reference rate for that assembly and is labelled as a user quote.
- Base year. Rates stay in their 2026 base year unless you supply an index pair and its source.
Every reference figure is labelled as an expert estimate from the Elementa 2026 cost reference, with its version. The rates are expert estimates by LX Design Studio, not a commercial cost database, and not a tendered price or a bill of quantities.
You see the result on the Scenarios tab, as an indicative cost on each scenario card and an assembly cost table, and in the report. A scenario counts as fully costed only when every recorded assembly is priced; a partial subtotal is labelled as incomplete and is never used to call one scenario cheaper than another.
When do cost and carbon disagree?
Often enough to matter. The cleanest case is a low-carbon material swap: you specify a bio-based or lower-intensity product to cut embodied carbon, but it sits at a higher price point than the conventional option. Carbon goes down; cost goes up. The pathway logic still holds; the material choice within it is what pulls in two directions.
A retained element can also cost more than expected. A frame that needs strengthening, or a facade that needs a full overhaul with insulation, is still a retention decision on the carbon side, while the intervention you price for it can approach the cost of new work.
The point of an early comparison is to surface that tension before it’s locked in. Buildings and construction account for around 37% of global energy- and process-related CO₂ emissions (UNEP, Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction 2025-2026), so the carbon side deserves a seat at the table next to cost, not after it.
When the baseline and the scenarios are fully priced on the same assemblies, Elementa also shows the extra euros per kilogram of CO₂e avoided against the captured baseline. Instead of arguing cost versus carbon abstractly, a team can see what each kilogram saved costs and decide deliberately.
How does ÖNORM B 2061 fit in?
Later in the process, and on the contractor’s side. ÖNORM B 2061 is the Austrian procedure standard for calculating prices for construction works: it sets out how a bidder builds unit prices from labour, material, plant and overhead costs, documented on standard calculation forms, and it is the basis for checking whether tendered prices are reasonable (Austrian Standards, ÖNORM B 2061:2020). It answers “how was this price calculated?”, which is a question for tender and award, not for concept-stage comparison.
The standard that structures a project’s costs is a different one. ÖNORM B 1801-1 groups construction costs into first-level cost areas 0 to 9, from land and site development through shell, building services and fit-out to fees, ancillary costs and reserves (Austrian Standards, ÖNORM B 1801-1:2022).
Where Elementa stands today:
- Elementa does not perform an ÖNORM B 2061 price calculation, and its rates are not derived from one.
- Its rates are organised by element type and intervention. The reference has a field for the first-level ÖNORM B 1801-1 cost area, but it is not yet filled in, so Elementa’s estimates are not yet mapped to B 1801-1 cost areas.
We’d rather be precise here than borrow a standard’s authority. For the carbon side, the reference is ÖKOBAUDAT, the German federal database of generic construction-material datasets (EN 15804+A2), from which Elementa pins one dataset to each layer.
How should you use these numbers in practice?
As a compass, not a contract. Use the indicative cost and carbon figures to rank options and spot where retention or reuse pays off twice, then hand the shortlist to a quantity surveyor for cost and a qualified assessor for carbon. Early comparison narrows the field; formal assessment confirms the winner.
A workable sequence:
- Classify each element by pathway (retain, reuse, refinish, replace, new), from a survey or a new-build spec.
- Choose an intervention and a region for each assembly you want costed, and enter a quote wherever you already have one.
- Compare scenarios on carbon and indicative cost side by side, and flag the disagreements: the low-carbon swaps that add cost, or the cheap options with poor carbon.
- Take the shortlist forward to formal cost and carbon assessment before committing.
Industry methodology like the RICS Whole Life Carbon Assessment sits at that later, formal stage; Elementa is the pre-assessment step before it, not a substitute for it.
FAQ
Are these cost figures a quantity surveyor’s estimate?
No. Elementa’s cost figures are indicative estimates from a versioned 2026 Austrian reference table: expert estimates by LX Design Studio, with regional factors and a stated uncertainty of mostly ±15–25 %. They are for early comparison, not for tendering, and they are not a bill of quantities. A quote you enter replaces the reference rate. Take the shortlist to a QS before committing.
Does the most circular pathway always cost less?
Usually, but not guaranteed. In Elementa’s cost reference, light-touch interventions such as retaining or refinishing carry lower rates than full replacement for every element type it covers. But a retained element can need substantial repair, and a low-carbon product can carry a price premium. That’s exactly the trade-off an early comparison is meant to make visible before you commit.
What does the carbon factor mean?
Each pathway carries a factor applied to an element’s baseline embodied carbon: Retain 0.05, Reuse 0.15, Refinish 0.40, Replace 1.10, New 1.00. A factor of 0.05 means roughly 95% of baseline embodied carbon is avoided. These are Elementa’s own indicative modelling conventions, applied to a baseline priced from pinned ÖKOBAUDAT generic datasets. They describe carbon only; cost is priced separately, per assembly.
Is ÖNORM B 2061 a carbon standard?
No. ÖNORM B 2061 is the Austrian procedure standard for calculating construction prices, used by bidders and for checking tendered prices. Elementa does not use it: its cost estimates come from an expert-estimate reference table, and the carbon side draws on ÖKOBAUDAT generic datasets, one pinned to each layer. Neither output is certified.
Bringing cost and carbon into one early view
Cost and carbon often point the same way on a refurbishment: retention and light-touch interventions tend to cost less than replacement and save carbon too. The exceptions, low-carbon swaps that carry a premium and retained elements that need heavy repair, are precisely why a construction cost circularity comparison belongs early in the process, where you can weigh the trade-off deliberately.
For the bigger picture on why these early calls dominate a building’s footprint, see Embodied carbon in construction. For a deeper look at the five pathways themselves, read Circularity pathways.
Both the cost and carbon figures here are indicative, for decision support, not certification, compliance, tendering or official reporting. Elementa is built to make that early trade-off visible across new build and refurbishment. If that’s a decision you’d like structured before you commit, start a project.