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. Qianmiao Yang & Liyao Kong & Hui Tong & Xiaolin Wang, 2020. "Evaluation Model of Environmental Impacts of Insulation Building Envelopes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, March.
    7. Mastrucci, Alessio & Marvuglia, Antonino & Benetto, Enrico & Leopold, Ulrich, 2020. "A spatio-temporal life cycle assessment framework for building renovation scenarios at the urban scale," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    8. Ashok Kumar & Pardeep Singh & Nishant Raj Kapoor & Chandan Swaroop Meena & Kshitij Jain & Kishor S. Kulkarni & Raffaello Cozzolino, 2021. "Ecological Footprint of Residential Buildings in Composite Climate of India—A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-25, October.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Pan, W. & Teng, Y., 2021. "A systematic investigation into the methodological variables of embodied carbon assessment of buildings," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    12. Serik Tokbolat & Farnush Nazipov & Jong R. Kim & Ferhat Karaca, 2019. "Evaluation of the Environmental Performance of Residential Building Envelope Components," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.
    13. Pollyanna Fernandes Bianchi & Víctor Yepes & Paulo Cezar Vitorio & Moacir Kripka, 2021. "Study of Alternatives for the Design of Sustainable Low-Income Housing in Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, April.
    14. Charles Breton & Pierre Blanchet & Ben Amor & Robert Beauregard & Wen-Shao Chang, 2018. "Assessing the Climate Change Impacts of Biogenic Carbon in Buildings: A Critical Review of Two Main Dynamic Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-30, June.
    15. Goune Kang & Hunhee Cho & Dongyoun Lee, 2019. "Dynamic Lifecycle Assessment in Building Construction Projects: Focusing on Embodied Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-16, July.
    16. Xabat Oregi & Rufino Javier Hernández & Patxi Hernandez, 2020. "Environmental and Economic Prioritization of Building Energy Refurbishment Strategies with Life-Cycle Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-22, May.
    17. Jana Gerta Backes & Marzia Traverso, 2021. "Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment—A Survey Based Potential Future Development for Implementation and Interpretation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-18, December.
    18. 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.
    19. Zhang, Chunbo & Hu, Mingming & Laclau, Benjamin & Garnesson, Thomas & Yang, Xining & Tukker, Arnold, 2021. "Energy-carbon-investment payback analysis of prefabricated envelope-cladding system for building energy renovation: Cases in Spain, the Netherlands, and Sweden," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    20. Karel Struhala & Milan Ostrý, 2021. "Life-Cycle Assessment of a Rural Terraced House: A Struggle with Sustainability of Building Renovations," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, April.

    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.