Božiček, D; Almezeraani, Y and Košir, M (2024) Making sense of LCA results when evaluating multiple building designs: Comparison of interpretation concepts. Building Research & Information, 52(1-2), pp. 129-147. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Identifying environmental hotspots and comparing design options are the most common goals in building life cycle assessment (LCA). Our paper focuses on the latter by identifying and evaluating various concepts for interpreting LCA results that can be applied when comparing multiple design options. The term LCA interpretation concept is introduced. Eight approaches were analysed and classified into three groups; (i) raw LCA data, (ii) benchmarking and (iii) single score indicator interpretation concepts. Features and attributes for making sense of LCA data were defined and used to evaluate how the investigated LCA interpretation concepts support decision-making. Finally, the results were compared and evaluated whether the applied LCA interpretation concepts could influence the designer's perception of environmental superiority. The outcomes show substantial differences in the ability of LCA interpretation concepts to support the decision-making process. Benchmarking, weighting and normalization are essential to making environmental decisions when comparing multiple design options coupled with multiple environmental indicators. Otherwise, the risk of decision-making dilemmas due to data overflow is high. Our case study with 21 design options showed that the perception of environmental superiority and inferiority may be conditioned by the selection of the LCA interpretation concept.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building design; building sustainability; environmental assessment; LCA interpretation concept; LCA results interpretation; life cycle assessment |
| Index terms: | benchmarking, environmental assessment, overflow, decision-making, life cycle assessment, option, building sustainability, building life cycle, decision-making process, designer, building design, case study |
| Subjects: | fluid mechanics, architectural design, sustainability and energy, environmental impact, data collection methods, profession, decision analysis, asset management, performance measurement |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Design Practice, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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