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
  • [41] Emergy as a Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicator A Gold Mining Case Study
    Ingwersen, Wesley W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, 2011, 15 (04) : 550 - 567
  • [42] Comparative material-based life cycle analysis of structural beam-floor systems
    Dossche, Charlotte
    Boel, Veerle
    De Corte, Wouter
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2018, 194 : 327 - 341
  • [43] Life-cycle and economic assessments of microalgae biogas production in suspension and biofilm cultivation systems
    Xu, Yilin
    Wei, Chaoyang
    Liu, Dawei
    Li, Jingying
    Tian, Bin
    Li, Zhuo
    Xu, Long
    [J]. BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2024, 395
  • [44] Accounting for biodiversity in life cycle impact assessments of forestry and agricultural systems-the BioImpact metric
    Turner, Perpetua A. M.
    Ximenes, Fabiano A.
    Penman, Trent D.
    Law, Bradley S.
    Waters, Cathleen M.
    Grant, Timothy
    Mo, Matthew
    Brock, Philippa M.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2019, 24 (11): : 1985 - 2007
  • [45] Erratum to: A global approach for sparse representation of uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessments of waste management systems
    Valentina Bisinella
    Knut Conradsen
    Thomas Højlund Christensen
    Thomas Fruergaard Astrup
    [J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2017, 22 : 839 - 839
  • [46] Comparative Life Cycle Assessments of Photovoltaic Thermal Systems with Earth Water Heat Exchanger Cooling
    Choudhary, Kailash
    Jakhar, Sanjeev
    Gakkhar, Nikhil
    Sangwan, Kuldip Singh
    [J]. Procedia CIRP, 2022, 105 : 255 - 260
  • [47] Life cycle analysis of reinforced concrete floor slab through three different waste management scenarios
    Carevic, Ivana
    Naletilic, Helena
    Stirmer, Nina
    [J]. GRADEVINAR, 2023, 75 (08): : 765 - 773
  • [48] Environmental life cycle assessments for water treatment processes - A South African case study of an urban water cycle
    Friedrich, E.
    Pillay, S.
    Buckley, C. A.
    [J]. WATER SA, 2009, 35 (01) : 73 - 84
  • [49] Life cycle assessment of wood floor coverings - A representative study for the German flooring industry
    Nebel, B
    Zimmer, B
    Wegener, G
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2006, 11 (03): : 172 - 182
  • [50] How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach
    Ruett, Johanna
    Hennes, Lena
    Teubler, Jens
    Braun, Boris
    [J]. SUSTAINABILITY, 2022, 14 (21)