Tokede, O and Globa, A (2025) Life cycle sustainability tracker: A dynamic approach. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 32(5), pp. 2971-3006. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: This paper bridges the gap between the theory and practice by developing a life cycle sustainability tracker (LCST). The study is seeking to proffer solutions to an observed shortcoming of conventional life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) communication platforms. Notably, the static nature of the information provided on such platforms has made it difficult for them to be used for real-time decision-making and predictions. The main aim of this paper is to develop a LCST that facilitates a dynamic visualisation of life cycle sustainability results and allows for an integrated benchmark across the dimensions of sustainability. Design/methodology/approach: The study leverages the model development capabilities of the design science research strategy in accomplishing a dynamic and novel communication platform. A life cycle thinking methodology and appropriate multicriteria decision approach (MCDA) is applied to accomplish a comprehensive, streamlined and replicable approach in mapping and tracking the progress of sustainable development goals (SDGs) in the National Infrastructure Pipeline (NIP) projects in India. Findings: It was found that: (1) The use of the LCST tracker provides a dynamic and holistic insight into the key LCSA indicators with clearly defined benchmarks to assess the impact on the SDG 11, (2) The NIP projects achieve an upward trend across all the regions, and the percentage of opportunities ranges from 11 to 24%, with the South experiencing the highest growth and the North having the minimal increase in percentage and (3) The assessment score (52–58%) provides performance metrics that align well with the LCST – which ranges between "Fair" and "Average" for all the regions in India. Originality/value: The novelty of this research is that the LCST provides a transparent and harmonised approach to reporting on the LCSA results. The LCST utilises heat maps and radial mapping to achieve an intuitive display of large amounts of highly heterogeneous data, thus allowing the synthesis of large sets of information compactly and with coherence. Progress towards the SDGs change on a yearly basis; hence, a dynamic LCSA tool provides a timely and the valuable context to map and track performance across different regions and contexts.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | communication; life cycle sustainability assessment; life cycle sustainability tracker; sustainable development goals; visualisation |
| Index terms: | model development, visualization, decision-making, methodology, mapping, coherence, strategy, sustainability assessment, performance metric, design science research, maps, dimension, India, sustainable development goal, life cycle, pipeline, platform |
| Subjects: | sustainability assessment, spatial and geospatial analysis, research methods, sustainable design, Geography, digital design, human factors and perception, analytical methods, performance measurement, management, design practice, decision analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, value management, health monitoring assessment and metrics |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Risk Management, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Project Management, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Business Strategy, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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