BEPAS—a life cycle building environmental performance assessment model

Zhang, Zhihui; Xing, Weihong; Yang, Xiaomin; Zhu, Yimin

doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.02.028

Cited by 143 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For some methods the hybrid nature made it impossible to classify them in the framework, like the CIRAIG method by Soares et al (2006). Similarly, domain specific weighting methods could not be used, like the BEPAS method by Zhang et al (2006). The method of weighting not only may be a mixed one but often it just is not clear conceptually, building on several other previous studies.…”

Section: Operational Methods Considered: Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Weighting environmental effects: Analytic survey with operational evaluation methods and a meta-method

Huppes

Oers

Pretato

et al. 2012

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to supply an open method for weighting different environmental impacts, open to basically different evaluation approaches and open to easy revisions. From the partial, diverse and conflicting weighing methods available, a most consistent and flexible meta-method is constructed, allowing for a transparent discussion on weighting. Methods The methods incorporated are as general as possible, each single one being as pure as possible. We surveyed encompassing operational methods for evaluation, applicable in LCA and in larger systems like countries. They differ in terms of modelling, as to midpoint or as to endpoint; as to evaluation set-up, in terms of collective preferences or individual preferences; and as to being either revealed or stated. The first is midpoint modelling with collectively stated preferences, with operational weighting schemes from Dutch and US government applications. Second is the LCAtype endpoint approach using individual stated preferences, with public examples from Japan and the Netherlands. The third is the integrated modelling approach by economists.Results All methods are internally inconsistent, as in terms of treatment of place and time, and they are incomplete, lacking environmental interventions and effect routes. We repaired only incompleteness, by methods transfer. Finally, we combined the three groups of methods into a metaweighting method, aligned to the ILCD Handbook requirements for impact assessment. Application to time series data on EU-27 consumption shows how the EU developed in terms of overall environmental decoupling. Conclusions The disparate methods available all can be improved substantially. For now, a user adjustable metamethod is the best option, allowing for public discussion. A flexible regularly updated spreadsheet is supplied with the article.

show abstract

Section: Operational Methods Considered: Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Weighting environmental effects: Analytic survey with operational evaluation methods and a meta-method

Huppes

Oers

Pretato

et al. 2012

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Construction wastes can be quantified by multiplying the quantity of constructive materials with their respective wastage rates (Zhang et al, 2006). As for demolition wastes, the re-use and recycling of materials should be excluded (Ma, 2004) (see Tables 4 and 5).…”

Section: Estimation Of Construction Wastes Per Unit Area For the Invementioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon emissions in the life cycle of urban building system in China—A case study of residential buildings

Fang

Zhang

et al. 2011

Ecological Complexity

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Most of the existing sustainability assessment methods (e.g., LEED, GBI, IGBC, and BREEAM) consider only the environmental aspects and ignore the economic and social aspects and sustainable criteria which are therefore not prioritized to facilitate decision making (Zhang et al, 2006). Extending concepts pioneered by IGB and LEED to infrastructure (but which may apply equally well to residential, commercial, and institutional buildings), the Envision Rating System developed in 2010 by the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure includes environmental and societal factors amongst the five categories that are evaluated: 1) quality of life, 2) leadership, 3) resource allocation, 4) natural world, and 5) climate and risk.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating and ranking sustainability criteria for housing

Abdul‐Rahman

Chen

Wood

et al. 2016

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous researchers have determined sustainability criteria relating to environmental performance but the other two sustainability components -economic and social performance -have not been taken into consideration in an integrated and hierarchy manner. Existing sustainability assessment methods (e.g., LEED, GBI, IGBC, and BREEAM) ignore the economic and social aspects, and sustainable criteria are not prioritized for decision making facilitation. To prioritize sustainable criteria for residential buildings in the triquetrous sustainability model including environmental, economic, and social in a global and integrated manner, a Fuzzy-AHP tool was employed and a structured expert-based development process comprised of seventeen building practitioners and eight academics from sixteen nations was conducted globally among carefully selected experts. A Fuzzy Weighted Hierarchy for Triquetrous Sustainability (FWH-TS) in residential buildings was developed at the end of this study. Assisted by programmers, the FWH-TS is expected to be developed into a PC software or Apps in the near future to improve construction management.

show abstract

BEPAS—a life cycle building environmental performance assessment model

Cited by 143 publications

References 6 publications

Weighting environmental effects: Analytic survey with operational evaluation methods and a meta-method

Weighting environmental effects: Analytic survey with operational evaluation methods and a meta-method

Carbon emissions in the life cycle of urban building system in China—A case study of residential buildings

Integrating and ranking sustainability criteria for housing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About