IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i4p3128-d1062285.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Support System for Selecting the Most Sustainable Structural Material for a Multistory Building Construction

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammad Masfiqul Alam Bhuiyan

    (Construction Engineering and Management, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada)

  • Ahmed Hammad

    (Construction Engineering and Management, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada)

Abstract

In recent years, the performance of the construction industry has highlighted the increased need for better resource efficiency, improved productivity, less waste, and increased value through sustainable construction practices. The core concept of sustainable construction is to maximize value and minimize harm by achieving a balance between social, economic, technical, and environmental aspects, commonly known as the pillars of sustainability. The decision regarding which structural material to select for any construction project is traditionally made based on technical and economic considerations with little or no attention paid to social and environmental aspects. Furthermore, the majority of the available literature on the subject considered three sustainability pillars (i.e., environmental, social, and economic), ignoring the influence of technical aspects for overall sustainability assessment. Industry experts have also noted an unfulfilled need for a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) technique that can integrate all stakeholders’ (project owner, designer, and constructor) opinions into the selection process. Hence, this research developed a decision support system (DSS) involving MCDM techniques to aid in selecting the most sustainable structural material, considering the four pillars of sustainability in the integrated project delivery (IPD) framework. A hybrid MCDM method combining AHP, TOPSIS, and VIKOR in a fuzzy environment was used to develop the DSS. A hypothetical eight-story building was considered for a case study to validate the developed DSS. The result shows that user preferences highly govern the final ranking of the alternative options of structural materials. Timber was chosen as the most sustainable option once the stakeholders assigned balanced importance to all factors of sustainable construction practices. The developed DSS was designed to be generic, can be used by any group of industry practitioners, and is expected to enhance objectivity and consistency of the decision-making process as a step towards achieving sustainable construction.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammad Masfiqul Alam Bhuiyan & Ahmed Hammad, 2023. "A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Support System for Selecting the Most Sustainable Structural Material for a Multistory Building Construction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-36, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:4:p:3128-:d:1062285
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3128/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3128/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marszal, Anna Joanna & Heiselberg, Per, 2011. "Life cycle cost analysis of a multi-storey residential Net Zero Energy Building in Denmark," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 5600-5609.
    2. Stephan, André & Stephan, Laurent, 2016. "Life cycle energy and cost analysis of embodied, operational and user-transport energy reduction measures for residential buildings," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 445-464.
    3. Changlu Zhang & Jian Zhang & Qiong Yang, 2022. "Identifying Critical Risk Factors in Green Product Certification Using Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, April.
    4. Hassan Hashemi & Parviz Ghoddousi & Farnad Nasirzadeh, 2021. "Sustainability Indicator Selection by a Novel Triangular Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision-Making Approach in Highway Construction Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-25, February.
    5. Faris Elghaish & M. Reza Hosseini & Saeed Talebi & Sepehr Abrishami & Igor Martek & Michail Kagioglou, 2020. "Factors Driving Success of Cost Management Practices in Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-14, November.
    6. Nassar, Roz-Ud-Din & Soroushian, Parviz & Ghebrab, Tewodros, 2013. "Field investigation of high-volume fly ash pavement concrete," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 78-85.
    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. Fatemeh Parvaneh & Ahmed Hammad, 2024. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) to Select the Most Sustainable Power-Generating Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-32, April.

    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. Yinan Li & Neng Zhu & Beibei Qin, 2019. "What Affects the Progress and Transformation of New Residential Building Energy Efficiency Promotion in China: Stakeholders’ Perceptions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-41, March.
    2. Tian, Wei & Song, Jitian & Li, Zhanyong & de Wilde, Pieter, 2014. "Bootstrap techniques for sensitivity analysis and model selection in building thermal performance analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 320-328.
    3. Abd Alla, Sara & Bianco, Vincenzo & Tagliafico, Luca A. & Scarpa, Federico, 2020. "Life-cycle approach to the estimation of energy efficiency measures in the buildings sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    4. De Boeck, L. & Verbeke, S. & Audenaert, A. & De Mesmaeker, L., 2015. "Improving the energy performance of residential buildings: A literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 960-975.
    5. Diakaki, Christina & Grigoroudis, Evangelos & Kolokotsa, Dionyssia, 2013. "Performance study of a multi-objective mathematical programming modelling approach for energy decision-making in buildings," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 534-542.
    6. Chih-Hsiung Chang & Wu-Hua Chang & Yi-Yu Shih, 2022. "Is Financial Institution Management Effective to Reduce Problems Related to Information Asymmetry in Taiwan?," Bulletin of Applied Economics, Risk Market Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 37-58.
    7. Gallo, Michela & Del Borghi, Adriana & Strazza, Carlo & Parodi, Lara & Arcioni, Livia & Proietti, Stefania, 2016. "Opportunities and criticisms of voluntary emission reduction projects developed by Public Administrations: Analysis of 143 case studies implemented in Italy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 1269-1282.
    8. Stephan, André & Stephan, Laurent, 2020. "Achieving net zero life cycle primary energy and greenhouse gas emissions apartment buildings in a Mediterranean climate," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    9. Kajetan Sadowski, 2021. "Implementation of the New European Bauhaus Principles as a Context for Teaching Sustainable Architecture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-21, September.
    10. Poppi, Stefano & Sommerfeldt, Nelson & Bales, Chris & Madani, Hatef & Lundqvist, Per, 2018. "Techno-economic review of solar heat pump systems for residential heating applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 22-32.
    11. Marszal, Anna Joanna & Heiselberg, Per & Lund Jensen, Rasmus & Nørgaard, Jesper, 2012. "On-site or off-site renewable energy supply options? Life cycle cost analysis of a Net Zero Energy Building in Denmark," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 154-165.
    12. Sergio Bruno & Maria Dicorato & Massimo La Scala & Roberto Sbrizzai & Pio Alessandro Lombardi & Bartlomiej Arendarski, 2019. "Optimal Sizing and Operation of Electric and Thermal Storage in a Net Zero Multi Energy System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-16, September.
    13. Mohamed, Ayman & Hasan, Ala & Sirén, Kai, 2014. "Fulfillment of net-zero energy building (NZEB) with four metrics in a single family house with different heating alternatives," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 385-399.
    14. Shabtai Isaac & Slava Shubin & Gad Rabinowitz, 2020. "Cost-Optimal Net Zero Energy Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-15, March.
    15. Kovacic, Iva & Zoller, Veronika, 2015. "Building life cycle optimization tools for early design phases," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(P3), pages 409-419.
    16. Faustino Patiño-Cambeiro & Julia Armesto & Faustino Patiño-Barbeito & Guillermo Bastos, 2016. "Perspectives on Near ZEB Renovation Projects for Residential Buildings: The Spanish Case," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-16, August.
    17. Bryce, James & Brodie, Stefanie & Parry, Tony & Lo Presti, Davide, 2017. "A systematic assessment of road pavement sustainability through a review of rating tools," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 108-118.
    18. Venkatraj, V. & Dixit, M.K., 2022. "Challenges in implementing data-driven approaches for building life cycle energy assessment: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    19. Ming Hu, 2019. "Cost-Effective Options for the Renovation of an Existing Education Building toward the Nearly Net-Zero Energy Goal—Life-Cycle Cost Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, April.
    20. He Wang & Yinqi Zhang & Weijun Gao & Soichiro Kuroki, 2020. "Life Cycle Environmental and Cost Performance of Prefabricated Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, March.

    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:15:y:2023:i:4:p:3128-:d:1062285. 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.