Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of the U.S. construction industry

Küçükvar, Murat; Tatari, Ömer

doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0545-9

Cited by 130 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We should thus pay due attention to relating sustainability questions to the most appropriate tools of our industrial ecology toolbox. The alternative is to throw the dic Kucukvar and Tatari ( 2013 ) To quantify the overall environmental, economic and social impacts of the US construction sectors using an economic input-output-based sustainability assessment framework Lack of comprehensive data sets for all three pillars Uncertainty assessment Onat et al ( 2014 ) Integrating several social and economic indicators demonstrating the usefulness of IO modelling for quantifying sustainability impacts, providing an economywide analysis and a macro-level LCSA Dynamic system approach Kucukvar et al ( 2014b ) To develop a triple bottom line sustainability assessment model evaluating the environmental and socio-economic impacts of pavements Uncertainty assessment; weighting of different impacts Kucukvar et al ( 2014a ) Adding fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method to the approach above Improving the backcasting models to including more impact categories, dynamics, defi nition of a welfare function, allocation of surplus consumption to consumption categories, etc.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• The need for data and methods, particularly the lack of (proper and quantitative) SLCA indicators (Klöpffer 2008 ;Finkbeiner et al 2010 ;Traverso et al 2012a ;Hu et al 2013 ;Ostermeyer et al 2013 ;Kucukvar and Tatari 2013 ;Vinyes et al 2013 ;Zamagni et al 2013 ).…”

Section: Main Challenges Identifi Ed In Lcsa Studies So Farmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• The need for comprehensive methods dealing with all relevant uncertainties related to life cycle-based approaches (Zamagni 2012 ;Pesonen and Horn 2013 ;Tatari 2013 andKucukvar et al 2014a , b ).…”

Section: Main Challenges Identifi Ed In Lcsa Studies So Farmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, several references mention (e.g. Cinelli et al 2013 ;Sala et al 2013b ;Zamagni 2012 ;Zamagni et al 2013 ;Pesonen and Horn 2013 ;Kucukvar and Tatari 2013 ;Kucukvar et al 2014a , b ) and some even address (Hertwich et al 2014 ) typical 'deepening' topics such as the need for comprehensive uncertainty assessment and methods for dealing with rebound effects. But, again, these references were excluded from Table 3.1 and Annex 1 due to the limitations of our bibliometric analysis (see above).…”

Section: Main Challenges Identifi Ed In Lcsa Studies So Farmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges?

Guinée

2016

Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) has developed fast over the last three decades. Today, LCA is widely applied and used as a tool for supporting policies and performance-based regulation, notably concerning bioenergy. Over the past decade, LCA has broadened to also include life cycle costing (LCC) and social LCA (SLCA), drawing on the three-pillar or 'triple bottom line' model of sustainability. With these developments, LCA has broadened from merely environmental assessment to a more comprehensive life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). LCSA has received increasing attention over the past years, while at the same time, its meaning and contents are not always suffi ciently clear. In this chapter, we therefore addressed the question: what are LCSA practitioners actually doing in practice? We distinguished two sub-questions: which defi nition(s) do they adopt and what challenges do they face? To answer these questions, LCSA research published over the past half decade has been analysed, supplemented by a brief questionnaire to researchers and practitioners. This analysis revealed two main defi nitions of LCSA. Based on these two defi nitions, we distinguished three dimensions along which LCSA is expanding when compared to environmental LCA: (1) broadening of impacts, LCSA = LCA + LCC + SLCA; (2) broadening level of analysis, product-, sector-and economy-wide questions and analyses; and (3) deepening, including other than just technological relations, such as physical, economic and behavioural relations. From this analysis, it is clear that the vast majority of LCSA research so far has focused on the 'broadening of impacts' dimension. The challenges most frequently cited concern the need for more practical examples of LCSA, effi cient ways of communicating LCSA results and the need for more data and methods particularly for SLCA indicators and comprehensive uncertainty assessment. We conclude that the three most crucial challenges to be addressed fi rst are developing quantitative and practical indicators for SLCA, life cycle-based approaches to evaluate scenarios for sustainable futures and practical ways to deal with uncertainties and rebound effects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Main Challenges Identifi Ed In Lcsa Studies So Farmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Main Challenges Identifi Ed In Lcsa Studies So Farmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Main Challenges Identifi Ed In Lcsa Studies So Farmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges?

Guinée

2016

Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This holistic life-cycle sustainability assessment tool has been utilized for environmental, economic, and social impact analysis of electricity production from wind turbines, U.S. construction industry, highway designs, and manufacturing sectors Kucukvar and Tatari 2013;Kucukvar et al 2014;Noori et al 2013). This research is in need to be extended to include more metrics and to be utilized in hybrid LCA methods.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proceedings of the Measurement Science for Sustainable Construction and Manufacturing Workshop Volume I. Position Papers and Findings

Ayyub¹,

Galloway²,

Wright³

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ForewordAn environmentally conscious public is increasingly demanding products that are more sustainable. Manufacturers are seeking to meet the expectations of consumers and the demands of regulators while becoming more environmentally responsible. For consumers, regulators, and manufacturers alike, this requires that credible processes be implemented to accurately measure the environmental impacts of products. As a result, sustainability considerations can drive new materials and technologies for sustainable products, process innovation for sustainable manufacturing, and innovation and creativity in supply and value chain operations. Therefore, progress toward greater sustainability in the built environment and the manufacturing sector is a necessary step to better enable resource efficiency in our nation.The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) develops unbiased, state-of-the-art measurement science that advances the nation's technology infrastructure and is needed by industry to continually improve products and services. The mission of NIST's Engineering Laboratory is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness in areas of critical national priority by anticipating and meeting the measurement science and standards needs for technology-intensive manufacturing, construction, and cyber-physical systems in ways that enhance economic prosperity and improve the quality of life. Sustainability is a recognized critical national priority-one that requires meaningful and rigorous measurement science for establishing suitable performance metrics.To address this need, NIST launched an effort to develop, organize, and convene an invitational workshop on sustainability to promote the adoption and use of sustainable construction and manufacturing and guide NIST in developing a portfolio of programs that are focused on providing the enabling measurement science to key industry stakeholders. The University of Maryland in collaboration with the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers undertook and performed that effort. The workshop was organized around four cross-cutting themes: (1) measurement science; (2) systems; (3) planning, design, and supply chains; and (4) economic, environmental, and social aspects. Plenary session presentations were commissioned covering each of the four cross-cutting themes. The plenary session presentations set the stage for focused breakout sessions organized around the four cross-cutting themes. Workshop participants were assigned to the breakout sessions in a manner that facilitated discussions among the key stakeholder groups represented at the workshop. The breakout sessions were co-facilitated by each theme's plenary speakers, which provided a firm base from which to develop a snapshot of the current state-of-the-art in that topic area, as well as identify gaps and research opportunities. Chan...

show abstract