IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v36y2008i3p429-441.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the life cycle of a building: A multivariant and multiple criteria approach

Author

Listed:
  • Banaitiene, Nerija
  • Banaitis, Audrius
  • Kaklauskas, Arturas
  • Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras

Abstract

This paper considers the application of methodology for the multivariant design and multiple criteria analysis of the life cycle of a building. The theoretical basis of the methodology is developed. A proposed methodology allows everyone (i.e. client, investor, contractor, etc.), who has to make the decisions, to design alternatives of the building life cycle and to evaluate its qualitative and quantitative aspects. This approach, in which various criteria can be employed, is intended to support the decision making on a building's life cycle selection and increase the efficiency of the resolution process. The procedure of the evaluating of a building's life cycle is discussed using an example.

Suggested Citation

  • Banaitiene, Nerija & Banaitis, Audrius & Kaklauskas, Arturas & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras, 2008. "Evaluating the life cycle of a building: A multivariant and multiple criteria approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 429-441, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:36:y:2008:i:3:p:429-441
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(06)00126-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    2. Skitmore, Martin, 2002. "Identifying non-competitive bids in construction contract auctions," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 443-449, December.
    3. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maghsoud Amiri & Mohammad Hashemi-Tabatabaei & Mohammad Ghahremanloo & Mehdi Keshavarz-Ghorabaee & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2021. "Evaluating Life Cycle of Buildings Using an Integrated Approach Based on Quantitative-Qualitative and Simplified Best-Worst Methods (QQM-SBWM)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-28, April.
    2. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    3. Z. A. Collier & D. Wang & J. T. Vogel & E. K. Tatham & I. Linkov, 2013. "Sustainable roofing technology under multiple constraints: a decision-analytical approach," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 261-271, June.
    4. Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Spahr, Ronald W. & Sunderman, Mark A. & Govindan, Kannan & Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, Ieva, 2022. "Urban blight remediation strategies subject to seasonal constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 296(1), pages 277-288.
    5. Ahmed Farouk Kineber & Ayodeji Emmanuel Oke & Mohammed Magdy Hamed & Ehab Farouk Rached & Ali Elmansoury & Ashraf Alyanbaawi, 2022. "A Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling of Robotics Implementation for Sustainable Building Projects: A Case in Nigeria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-24, December.
    6. Brandão de Vasconcelos, Ana & Cabaço, António & Pinheiro, Manuel Duarte & Manso, Armando, 2016. "The impact of building orientation and discount rates on a Portuguese reference building refurbishment decision," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 329-340.
    7. Neeraj Chopra & Rajiv Sindwani & Manisha Goel, 2021. "A Hybrid Approach Based on Fuzzy TOPSIS-AHP for Ranking and Classifying MOOC Key Acceptance Factors," International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies (IJWLTT), IGI Global, vol. 16(5), pages 1-20, September.
    8. Xin Liang & Geoffrey Qiping Shen & Li Guo, 2015. "Improving Management of Green Retrofits from a Stakeholder Perspective: A Case Study in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, October.
    9. Li, Sheng-Tun & Chou, Wei-Chien, 2014. "Power planning in ICT infrastructure: A multi-criteria operational performance evaluation approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 134-148.
    10. Xiao-Juan Li & Chen Wang & Wei-bin Chen & Shilpi Bora & Jeffrey Boon Hui Yap & Bimenyimana Samuel, 2022. "Green building performance assessment in China using a cloud model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(10), pages 11626-11650, October.
    11. Jelena Kilić Pamuković & Katarina Rogulj & Nikša Jajac & Siniša Mastelić-Ivić, 2023. "Model of Priority Ranking of Cadastral Parcels for Planning the Implementation of Urban Consolidation," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-26, January.
    12. Beniamino Murgante & Mohamad Salmani & Mohamad Molaei Qelichi & Mehdi Hajilo, 2017. "A Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Approach to Evaluate the Sustainability Indicators in the Villagers’ Lives in Iran with Emphasis on Earthquake Hazard: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-14, August.
    13. Xin Liang & Tao Yu & Li Guo, 2017. "Understanding Stakeholders’ Influence on Project Success with a New SNA Method: A Case Study of the Green Retrofit in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-19, October.
    14. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    15. Katerina Kabassi, 2021. "Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models for Evaluating Environmental Education Programs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    16. Arturas Kaklauskas & Gintautas Dzemyda & Laura Tupenaite & Ihar Voitau & Olga Kurasova & Jurga Naimaviciene & Yauheni Rassokha & Loreta Kanapeckiene, 2018. "Artificial Neural Network-Based Decision Support System for Development of an Energy-Efficient Built Environment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-20, August.

    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.
    1. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    2. Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram & Vijay P. Singh & Ercan Kahya & Ehsan Alvandi & Chandrashekhar Meshram & Shailesh Kumar Sharma, 2020. "The Feasibility of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach for Prioritization of Sensitive Area at Risk of Water Erosion," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(15), pages 4665-4685, December.
    3. Karatas, Mumtaz & Sulukan, Egemen & Karacan, Ilknur, 2018. "Assessment of Turkey's energy management performance via a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 890-912.
    4. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    5. Mukherjee, Krishnendu, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution: a bibliometric analysis from past, present and future of AHP and TOPSIS," MPRA Paper 59887, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    7. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    8. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    9. Eduardo Guzman & Beatriz Andres & Raul Poler, 2022. "A Decision-Making Tool for Algorithm Selection Based on a Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach to Solve Replenishment, Production and Distribution Planning Problems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-28, May.
    10. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    11. Eduardo Fernandez & Jorge Navarro & Rafael Olmedo, 2018. "Characterization of the Effectiveness of Several Outranking-Based Multi-Criteria Sorting Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1047-1084, July.
    12. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    13. Claudia Margarita Acuña-Soto & Vicente Liern & Blanca Pérez-Gladish, 2020. "Multiple criteria performance evaluation of YouTube mathematical educational videos by IS-TOPSIS," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 2017-2039, December.
    14. Manojit Chattopadhyay & Subrata Kumar Mitra, 2017. "Applicability and effectiveness of classifications models for achieving the twin objectives of growth and outreach of microfinance institutions," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 451-474, December.
    15. Peng, Yi & Kou, Gang & Wang, Guoxun & Shi, Yong, 2011. "FAMCDM: A fusion approach of MCDM methods to rank multiclass classification algorithms," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 677-689, December.
    16. Yeh, Chung-Hsing & Chang, Yu-Hern, 2009. "Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(2), pages 464-473, April.
    17. Heidary Dahooie, Jalil & Qorbani, Ali Reza & Daim, Tugrul, 2021. "Providing a framework for selecting the appropriate method of technology acquisition considering uncertainty in hierarchical group decision-making: Case Study: Interactive television technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    18. Yongming Song & Jun Hu, 2017. "Vector similarity measures of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and their applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, December.
    19. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    20. Zheng, Guozhong & Wang, Xiao, 2020. "The comprehensive evaluation of renewable energy system schemes in tourist resorts based on VIKOR method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).

    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:eee:jomega:v:36:y:2008:i:3:p:429-441. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.