IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i8p4487-d538047.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating Life Cycle of Buildings Using an Integrated Approach Based on Quantitative-Qualitative and Simplified Best-Worst Methods (QQM-SBWM)

Author

Listed:
  • Maghsoud Amiri

    (Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran 14348-63111, Iran)

  • Mohammad Hashemi-Tabatabaei

    (Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran 14348-63111, Iran)

  • Mohammad Ghahremanloo

    (Department of Management, Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood 36199-95161, Iran)

  • Mehdi Keshavarz-Ghorabaee

    (Department of Management, Faculty of Humanities (Azadshahr Branch), Gonbad Kavous University, Gonbad Kavous 49717-99151, Iran)

  • Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas

    (Institute of Sustainable Construction, Civil Engineering Faculty, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Arturas Kaklauskas

    (Department of Construction Management and Real Estate, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

Abstract

Evaluating the life cycle of buildings is a valuable tool for assessing sustainability and analyzing environmental consequences throughout the construction operations of buildings. In this study, in order to determine the importance of building life cycle evaluation indicators, a new combination method was used based on a quantitative-qualitative method (QQM) and a simplified best-worst method (SBWM). The SBWM method was used because it simplifies BWM calculations and does not require solving complex mathematical models. Reducing the time required to perform calculations and eliminating the need for complicated computer software are among the advantages of the proposed method. The QQM method has also been used due to its ability to evaluate quantitative and qualitative criteria simultaneously. The feasibility and applicability of the SBWM were examined using three numerical examples and a case study, and the results were evaluated. The results of the case study showed that the criteria of the estimated cost, comfort level, and basic floor area were, in order, the most important criteria among the others. The results of the numerical examples and the case study showed that the proposed method had a lower total deviation (TD) compared to the basic BWM. Sensitivity analysis results also confirmed that the proposed approach has a high degree of robustness for ranking and weighting criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4487-:d:538047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4487/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4487/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mohammad Hashemi Tabatabaei & Seyed Mohammad Ali Khatami Firouzabadi & Maghsoud Amiri & Mohammad Ghahremanloo, 2020. "A combination of the fuzzy best-worst and Vikor methods for prioritisation the Lean Six Sigma improvement projects," International Journal of Business Continuity and Risk Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(4), pages 267-277.
    2. Zhang, Huanhuan & Kou, Gang & Peng, Yi, 2019. "Soft consensus cost models for group decision making and economic interpretations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(3), pages 964-980.
    3. Zavadskas, E. K. & Kaklauskas, A. & Banaitis, A. & Kvederyte, N., 2004. "Housing credit access model: The case for Lithuania," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 155(2), pages 335-352, June.
    4. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    5. Ignacio Zabalza & Sabina Scarpellini & Alfonso Aranda & Eva Llera & Alberto Jáñez, 2013. "Use of LCA as a Tool for Building Ecodesign. A Case Study of a Low Energy Building in Spain," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(8), pages 1-21, August.
    6. Alizadeh, Reza & Gharizadeh Beiragh, Ramin & Soltanisehat, Leili & Soltanzadeh, Elham & Lund, Peter D., 2020. "Performance evaluation of complex electricity generation systems: A dynamic network-based data envelopment analysis approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    7. Peipei You & Sen Guo & Haoran Zhao & Huiru Zhao, 2017. "Operation Performance Evaluation of Power Grid Enterprise Using a Hybrid BWM-TOPSIS Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Haoran Zhao & Huiru Zhao & Sen Guo, 2018. "Comprehensive Performance Evaluation of Electricity Grid Corporations Employing a Novel MCDM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-23, June.
    9. Baumann, Manuel & Weil, Marcel & Peters, Jens F. & Chibeles-Martins, Nelson & Moniz, Antonio B., 2019. "A review of multi-criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy storage systems for grid applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 516-534.
    10. Chau, C.K. & Leung, T.M. & Ng, W.Y., 2015. "A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 395-413.
    11. 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.
    12. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    13. Kou, Gang & Lin, Changsheng, 2014. "A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(1), pages 225-232.
    14. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    15. Haoran Zhao & Sen Guo & Huiru Zhao, 2018. "Comprehensive Performance Assessment on Various Battery Energy Storage Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-26, October.
    16. Chunguang Bai & Simonov Kusi-Sarpong & Hadi Badri Ahmadi & Joseph Sarkis, 2019. "Social sustainable supplier evaluation and selection: a group decision-support approach," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(22), pages 7046-7067, November.
    17. Maria Rosaria Guarini & Fabrizio Battisti & Anthea Chiovitti, 2018. "A Methodology for the Selection of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods in Real Estate and Land Management Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-28, February.
    18. Huazan Liu & Yukang He & Qichao Hu & Jianfei Guo & Lan Luo, 2020. "Risk management system and intelligent decision-making for prefabricated building project under deep learning modified teaching-learning-based optimization," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, July.
    19. Kumar, Abhishek & Sah, Bikash & Singh, Arvind R. & Deng, Yan & He, Xiangning & Kumar, Praveen & Bansal, R.C., 2017. "A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 596-609.
    20. Alizadeh, Reza & Soltanisehat, Leili & Lund, Peter D. & Zamanisabzi, Hamed, 2020. "Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    21. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    22. Campos-Guzmán, Verónica & García-Cáscales, M. Socorro & Espinosa, Nieves & Urbina, Antonio, 2019. "Life Cycle Analysis with Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A review of approaches for the sustainability evaluation of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 343-366.
    23. Alizadeh, Reza & Lund, Peter D. & Soltanisehat, Leili, 2020. "Outlook on biofuels in future studies: A systematic literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    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. Du, Puliang & Zhou, Bo & Yang, Miaoheng, 2024. "Carbon emission reduction contribution analysis of electricity enterprises in urban green development: A quantum spherical fuzzy sets-based decision framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    2. Kang, Daekook & Devi, S. Aicevarya & Felix, Augustin & Narayanamoorthy, Samayan & Kalaiselvan, Samayan & Balaenu, Dumitru & Ahmadian, Ali, 2022. "Intuitionistic fuzzy MAUT-BW Delphi method for medication service robot selection during COVID-19," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 9(C).
    3. Zdeněk Kala, 2021. "New Importance Measures Based on Failure Probability in Global Sensitivity Analysis of Reliability," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(19), pages 1-20, September.

    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. Sree Harsha Bandaru & Victor Becerra & Sourav Khanna & Harold Espargilliere & Law Torres Sevilla & Jovana Radulovic & David Hutchinson & Rinat Khusainov, 2021. "A General Framework for Multi-Criteria Based Feasibility Studies for Solar Energy Projects: Application to a Real-World Solar Farm," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-34, April.
    2. Sen Guo & Wenyue Zhang & Xiao Gao, 2020. "Business Risk Evaluation of Electricity Retail Company in China Using a Hybrid MCDM Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Amin Vafadarnikjoo & Madjid Tavana & Tiago Botelho & Konstantinos Chalvatzis, 2020. "A neutrosophic enhanced best–worst method for considering decision-makers’ confidence in the best and worst criteria," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 391-418, June.
    4. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    5. Dragan Pamučar & Fatih Ecer & Goran Cirovic & Melfi A. Arlasheedi, 2020. "Application of Improved Best Worst Method (BWM) in Real-World Problems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-19, August.
    6. Ali Mostafaeipour & Seyyed Jalaladdin Hosseini Dehshiri & Seyyed Shahabaddin Hosseini Dehshiri & Mehdi Jahangiri & Kuaanan Techato, 2020. "A Thorough Analysis of Potential Geothermal Project Locations in Afghanistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-17, October.
    7. Magdalena Krysiak & Aldona Kluczek, 2021. "A Multifaceted Challenge to Enhance Multicriteria Decision Support for Energy Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-20, July.
    8. Wu, Qun & Liu, Xinwang & Zhou, Ligang & Qin, Jindong & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "An analytical framework for the best–worst method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    9. Mu-Hsin Chang & James J. H. Liou & Huai-Wei Lo, 2019. "A Hybrid MCDM Model for Evaluating Strategic Alliance Partners in the Green Biopharmaceutical Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-20, July.
    10. Madjid Tavana & Akram Shaabani & Francisco Javier Santos-Arteaga & Iman Raeesi Vanani, 2020. "A Review of Uncertain Decision-Making Methods in Energy Management Using Text Mining and Data Analytics," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-23, August.
    11. Fumin Deng & Yanjie Li & Huirong Lin & Jinrui Miao & Xuedong Liang, 2020. "A BWM-TOPSIS Hazardous Waste Inventory Safety Risk Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-18, August.
    12. Bortoluzzi, Mirian & Correia de Souza, Celso & Furlan, Marcelo, 2021. "Bibliometric analysis of renewable energy types using key performance indicators and multicriteria decision models," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    13. Haoran Zhao & Huiru Zhao & Sen Guo, 2018. "Comprehensive Performance Evaluation of Electricity Grid Corporations Employing a Novel MCDM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-23, June.
    14. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    15. Yuanxin Liu & FengYun Li & Yi Wang & Xinhua Yu & Jiahai Yuan & Yuwei Wang, 2018. "Assessing the Environmental Impact Caused by Power Grid Projects in High Altitude Areas Based on BWM and Vague Sets Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, May.
    16. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "Better decisions with less cognitive load: The Parsimonious BWM," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    17. Besharati Fard, Moein & Moradian, Parisa & Emarati, Mohammadreza & Ebadi, Mehdi & Gholamzadeh Chofreh, Abdoulmohammad & Klemeŝ, Jiří Jaromír, 2022. "Ground-mounted photovoltaic power station site selection and economic analysis based on a hybrid fuzzy best-worst method and geographic information system: A case study Guilan province," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    18. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Jarosław Wątróbski & Wojciech Sałabun, 2020. "Identification of Relevant Criteria Set in the MCDA Process—Wind Farm Location Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-40, December.
    19. Milad Kolagar & Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini & Ramin Felegari & Parviz Fattahi, 2020. "Policy-making for renewable energy sources in search of sustainable development: a hybrid DEA-FBWM approach," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 485-509, December.
    20. Xiao-Kang Wang & Wen-Hui Hou & Chao Song & Min-Hui Deng & Yong-Yi Li & Jian-Qiang Wang, 2021. "BW-MaxEnt: A Novel MCDM Method for Limited Knowledge," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(14), pages 1-17, July.

    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:8:p:4487-:d:538047. 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.