Applying three pillar indicator assessments on alternative floor systems: life cycle study

被引:19
|
作者
Balasbaneh, Ali Tighnavard [1 ]
Yeoh, David [1 ]
Juki, Mohd Irwan [1 ]
Gohari, Adel [2 ]
Abidin, Ahmad Razin Zainal [3 ]
Marsono, Abdul Kadir Bin [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Fac Civil & Environm Engn, Parit Raja 86400, Johor, Malaysia
[2] Univ Teknol Petronas, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, Seri Iskandar 32610, Perak, Malaysia
[3] Univ Teknol Malaysia, Dept Mat & Struct, Sch Civil Engn, Johor Baharu, Malaysia
来源
关键词
Flooring system; Sustainability; Life cycle assessment; Life cycle cost; Social life cycle; Multi-criteria decision-making; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; WOOD; IMPACT; COSTS;
D O I
10.1007/s11367-021-01881-6
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Purpose A comprehensive sustainable research requires investigation on all the relevant environmental, financial and social impacts. The objective of this research is to evaluate the sustainability performance of different flooring systems using a multi-criteria method. Included flooring systems are ceramic tile, laminate, concrete and wood, and criteria consist of carbon dioxide emission, ozone layer depletion, cost and social impacts. Methods The method of this study entails four stages. In the first stage, the life cycle assessment (LCA) is conducted to rank the flooring systems based on carbon dioxide emission (CO2) and ozone layer depletion (OLD). The second stage entails the life cycle cost assessment (LCCA) which focuses on alternatives based on their related cost. The LCA and LCCA cover the four phases of production and construction, transportation, maintenance and end of life. In the third stage, the social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is performed involving four main social indicators namely workers, local community, society and consumers. The final stage entails the implementation of the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach to evaluate the different options resulting from the LCA, LCCA and SLCA to propose the most sustainable flooring system by taking into consideration the combination of all the stated criteria. Results and discussion The result of the LCA indicates that wood flooring is the least environmental impact per functional unit as it causes fewer carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (17%) than the second least environmental impact per functional unit (laminated flooring). However, the result of the LCCA suggests that concrete flooring is the lowest costing system, i.e. 30% less than the second best option (wood flooring). On the other hand, the SLCA result indicates that laminated flooring is the least negative social impact with a 28% better score than concrete flooring. The results of the MCDM show that wood is the most sustainable floor system with a utility degree of 100%, higher than laminated flooring at 78%. However, in equal weighting scenario, laminated flooring is shown to be the best choice. Conclusions The presented approach in this research has been successfully applied on a case study. It provides valuable insight on the assessment of flooring systems so as to assist decision-makers and architects in prioritising and selecting the most sustainable flooring systems to be used in residential buildings in Malaysia. This methodology can be applied in other countries with a similar climate and cultural preferences.
引用
收藏
页码:1439 / 1455
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Applying three pillar indicator assessments on alternative floor systems: life cycle study
    Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh
    David Yeoh
    Mohd Irwan Juki
    Adel Gohari
    Ahmad Razin Zainal Abidin
    Abdul Kadir Bin Marsono
    [J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2021, 26 : 1439 - 1455
  • [2] Life cycle assessment of alternative building floor rehabilitation systems
    Demertzi, M.
    Silvestre, J.
    Garrido, M.
    Correia, J. R.
    Durao, V.
    Proenca, M.
    [J]. STRUCTURES, 2020, 26 : 237 - 246
  • [3] Life Cycle Assessments - Controversial, but without Alternative
    Siebel, Thomas
    [J]. ATZ worldwide, 2021, 123 (04): : 8 - 13
  • [4] Return on environmentAn objective indicator to validate life cycle assessments?
    David Hunkeler
    Gautam Biswas
    [J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2000, 5 : 358 - 362
  • [5] Return on Environment An Objective Indicator To Validate Life Cycle Assessments?
    Hunkeler, David
    Biswas, Gautam
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2000, 5 (06): : 358 - 362
  • [6] Conventional and alternative water supply systems: a life cycle study
    Mithraratne, Nalanie
    Vale, Robert
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, 2007, 6 (02) : 136 - 146
  • [7] A review of life cycle assessments on wind energy systems
    Simon Davidsson
    Mikael Höök
    Göran Wall
    [J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2012, 17 : 729 - 742
  • [8] A review of life cycle assessments on wind energy systems
    Davidsson, Simon
    Hook, Mikael
    Wall, Goran
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2012, 17 (06): : 729 - 742
  • [9] Life cycle assessment study on resilient floor coverings
    Günther A.
    Langowski H.-C.
    [J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 1997, 2 (2) : 73 - 80
  • [10] Life cycle environmental impact assessments and comparisons of alternative fuels for clean vehicles
    Bicer, Yusuf
    Dincer, Ibrahim
    [J]. RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2018, 132 : 141 - 157