Koc, K; Ekmekcioglu, Ö and Işlk, Z (2023) Developing a hybrid fuzzy decision-making model for sustainable circular contractor selection. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 149(10): 04023095, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The construction sector accounts for a significant proportion of natural resource consumption and waste generation. This reveals the essentiality for gravitating the operations in the industry toward more sustainable paradigms. To tackle these concerns, the circular economy (CE) model has become a central concept to render conventional production and consumption behaviors in construction projects into innovative and sustainable patterns. In construction projects, selecting the most competent contractor is of paramount importance. Hence, the present research seeks to establish a comprehensive evaluation framework for sustainable circular contractor selection based on a hybrid fuzzy multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) approach. In this respect, the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was adopted for assessing the CE indicators, while the fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) was utilized for evaluating circularity and eligibility of contractors. The utility of the proposed framework was predicated with regard to hydropower projects due to several environmental challenges encountered in the corresponding subsector. The results show that the contractors can be circular only if they have strong financial viability, develop strategies to implement ReSOLVE (regenerate, share, optimize, loop, virtualize, exchange), adopt specific construction methods to CE (e.g., modular construction), and propose sustainable innovative solutions. Overall, the proposed hybrid fuzzy MCDM framework can be used as a more systematic and transparent approach for selecting the most circular and sustainable contractors, contributing to the preservation of earth's resources. Given the current contractors' limited capacity to address circularity and sustainability concerns, the findings of this study can be regarded as a roadmap and contributes to practice by achieving circular and sustainable construction objectives with waste reduction, cost savings, and environmental benefits.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | circular construction; circular economy; contractor selection; hydropower projects; multicriteria decision analysis |
| Index terms: | evaluation, sustainable construction, strategy, construction method, construction project, decision-making, modular construction, construction sector, consumption, preference, waste reduction, contractor selection, hydropower project, circularity, waste generation, topsis, decision analysis, financial viability, natural resource, circular economy, paradigm, eligibility, cost saving, analytical hierarchy process |
| Subjects: | sustainable construction, production management, employment law, sustainable design, decision-making and reasoning, tendering, economics, sustainability assessment, management, education and knowledge transfer, decision-making and optimization, industry analysis, building construction, decision analysis, environmental impact, consumer economics, sustainable materials, construction type, business management, data analysis and analytics, environmental resource management |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Project Management, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Legal Issues, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here