IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i9p5124-d548379.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Using Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing in Circular Building Design: A Case Study for Wall Partitioning Systems in the Circular Retrofit Lab

Author

Listed:
  • Neethi Rajagopalan

    (Smart Energy and Built Environment, Flemish Institute for Technical Research (VITO), Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium
    Energyville, Thor Park 831, 3600 Genk, Belgium)

  • Stijn Brancart

    (VUB Architectural Engineering, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Sofie De Regel

    (Smart Energy and Built Environment, Flemish Institute for Technical Research (VITO), Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium
    Energyville, Thor Park 831, 3600 Genk, Belgium)

  • Anne Paduart

    (Brussels Environment, Tour & Taxis, Avenue du Port 86C/3000, 1000 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Niels De Temmerman

    (VUB Architectural Engineering, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Wim Debacker

    (Vito Transition Platform, Flemish Institute for Technical Research (VITO), Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium)

Abstract

The Circular Economy (CE) paradigm has been gaining momentum. However, the tools and methods used to design, measure and implement circularity are not immediately suitable for decision making and practice by key stakeholders. This article details a qualitative and a quantitative method to evaluate characteristics such as circularity, adaptability and reuse of building elements amongst others in order to provide decision-makers, such as building clients, architects, investors and policy makers, an objective way to assess the benefits and constraints of circular buildings and elements. The study implements the method in the case study, the Circular Retrofit Lab in Belgium, and uses a multi-criteria decision approach to evaluate qualitative parameters and life cycle assessment and life cycle costing to quantitatively evaluate the circular solutions proposed in this study. As such, the paper shows how a multi-criteria decision approach can be applied to evaluate circular building solutions in the context of practical architectural projects, in this case assessing the suitability of three interior wall systems for applications with different turnover rates. The study shows that the overall performance of the evaluated wall systems varies largely from one expected user scenario to the other.

Suggested Citation

  • Neethi Rajagopalan & Stijn Brancart & Sofie De Regel & Anne Paduart & Niels De Temmerman & Wim Debacker, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Using Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing in Circular Building Design: A Case Study for Wall Partitioning Systems in the Circular Retrofit Lab," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:5124-:d:548379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/5124/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/5124/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anand, Chirjiv Kaur & Amor, Ben, 2017. "Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 408-416.
    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. Anja Eisenreich & Johann Füller & Martin Stuchtey, 2021. "Circular Project Selection: How Companies Can Evaluate Circular Innovation Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-30, November.
    2. Sarah C. Andersen & Harpa Birgisdottir & Morten Birkved, 2022. "Life Cycle Assessments of Circular Economy in the Built Environment—A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-31, June.

    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. Kong, Minjin & Lee, Minhyun & Kang, Hyuna & Hong, Taehoon, 2021. "Development of a framework for evaluating the contents and usability of the building life cycle assessment tool," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    2. Mastrucci, Alessio & Marvuglia, Antonino & Leopold, Ulrich & Benetto, Enrico, 2017. "Life Cycle Assessment of building stocks from urban to transnational scales: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 316-332.
    3. Pau Fonseca i Casas & Antoni Fonseca i Casas, 2017. "Using Specification and Description Language for Life Cycle Assesment in Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-17, June.
    4. Alejandro Padilla-Rivera & Ben Amor & Pierre Blanchet, 2018. "Evaluating the Link between Low Carbon Reductions Strategies and Its Performance in the Context of Climate Change: A Carbon Footprint of a Wood-Frame Residential Building in Quebec, Canada," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    5. Kim, Rakhyun & Tae, Sungho & Roh, Seungjun, 2017. "Development of low carbon durability design for green apartment buildings in South Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 263-272.
    6. Cellura, Maurizio & Guarino, Francesco & Longo, Sonia & Mistretta, Marina, 2017. "Modeling the energy and environmental life cycle of buildings: A co-simulation approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 733-742.
    7. Henrik Engelbrecht Foldager & Rasmus Camillus Jeppesen & Muhyiddine Jradi, 2019. "DanRETRO: A Decision-Making Tool for Energy Retrofit Design and Assessment of Danish Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-19, July.
    8. Xingqiang Song & Christel Carlsson & Ramona Kiilsgaard & David Bendz & Helene Kennedy, 2020. "Life Cycle Assessment of Geotechnical Works in Building Construction: A Review and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-17, October.
    9. Helena Nydahl & Staffan Andersson & Anders P. Åstrand & Thomas Olofsson, 2019. "Environmental Performance Measures to Assess Building Refurbishment from a Life Cycle Perspective," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.
    10. Lee, Nayoon & Tae, Sungho & Gong, Yuri & Roh, Seungjun, 2017. "Integrated building life-cycle assessment model to support South Korea's green building certification system (G-SEED)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 43-50.
    11. Gimeno-Frontera, Beatriz & Mainar-Toledo, María Dolores & Sáez de Guinoa, Aitana & Zambrana-Vasquez, David & Zabalza-Bribián, Ignacio, 2018. "Sustainability of non-residential buildings and relevance of main environmental impact contributors' variability. A case study of food retail stores buildings," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 669-681.
    12. Edward Majewski & Anna Komerska & Jerzy Kwiatkowski & Agata Malak-Rawlikowska & Adam Wąs & Piotr Sulewski & Marlena Gołaś & Kinga Pogodzińska & Jean-Loup Lecoeur & Barbara Tocco & Áron Török & Michele, 2020. "Are Short Food Supply Chains More Environmentally Sustainable than Long Chains? A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the Eco-Efficiency of Food Chains in Selected EU Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-26, September.
    13. Pomponi, Francesco & Moncaster, Alice, 2018. "Scrutinising embodied carbon in buildings: The next performance gap made manifest," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P2), pages 2431-2442.
    14. Arning, K. & Offermann-van Heek, J. & Ziefle, M., 2021. "What drives public acceptance of sustainable CO2-derived building materials? A conjoint-analysis of eco-benefits vs. health concerns," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    15. Geng, Shengnan & Wang, Yuan & Zuo, Jian & Zhou, Zhihua & Du, Huibin & Mao, Guozhu, 2017. "Building life cycle assessment research: A review by bibliometric analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 176-184.
    16. Suman Paneru & Forough Foroutan Jahromi & Mohsen Hatami & Wilfred Roudebush & Idris Jeelani, 2021. "Integration of Emergy Analysis with Building Information Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-16, July.
    17. Inkwan Paik & Seunguk Na & Seongho Yoon, 2018. "Assessment of CO 2 Emissions by Replacing an Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Slab with the Void Slab System in a High-Rise Commercial Residential Complex Building in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    18. Lihua Liang & Baohua Wen & Feng Xu & Jianwei Yan & Xiangqi Yan & S. Ramesh, 2021. "Linking the Development of Building Sustainability Assessment Tools with the Concept Evolution of Sustainable Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-23, November.
    19. Ming-Lun Alan Fong, 2021. "Sustainable Ventilation Strategies for a Medium-Sized Space with Regional Effect," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, April.
    20. Röck, Martin & Saade, Marcella Ruschi Mendes & Balouktsi, Maria & Rasmussen, Freja Nygaard & Birgisdottir, Harpa & Frischknecht, Rolf & Habert, Guillaume & Lützkendorf, Thomas & Passer, Alexander, 2020. "Embodied GHG emissions of buildings – The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 258(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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:5124-:d:548379. 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.