Selih, J (2006) Selection of refurbishment actions for residential buildings by multi criteria decision method. In: Boyd, D (ed.) Proceedings of 22nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 4-6 September 2006, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
The majority of building stock in Europe is older than 30 years and in need of refurbishment. Funding for such actions is always limited, therefore rational methods have to be employed to determine the extent of refurbishment. The paper presents a computer supported multi-criteria decision model for the selection of a set of actions with highest cumulative utility score. A financial constraint can be imposed upon the solution. Mathematically, the model is based on the knapsack problem. The results of a case study show that the total utility score depends strongly upon the selected relative importance of criteria employed.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building performance; decision theory; housing; operational research; refurbishment |
| Index terms: | building stock, funding, case study, relative importance, Europe, residential building, housing, building performance, decision theory, operational research |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, management, data collection methods, economic analysis, asset management, quality assurance, construction type, physical geography and landforms, decision analysis |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Quality Management, Geographical Context, Risk Management, Construction Technology, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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