Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Applying three pillar indicator assessments on alternative floor systems: life cycle study

  • LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

A comprehensive sustainable research requires investigation on all the relevant environmental, financial and social impacts. The objective of this research is to evaluate the sustainability performance of different flooring systems using a multi-criteria method. Included flooring systems are ceramic tile, laminate, concrete and wood, and criteria consist of carbon dioxide emission, ozone layer depletion, cost and social impacts.

Methods

The method of this study entails four stages. In the first stage, the life cycle assessment (LCA) is conducted to rank the flooring systems based on carbon dioxide emission (CO2) and ozone layer depletion (OLD). The second stage entails the life cycle cost assessment (LCCA) which focuses on alternatives based on their related cost. The LCA and LCCA cover the four phases of production and construction, transportation, maintenance and end of life. In the third stage, the social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is performed involving four main social indicators namely workers, local community, society and consumers. The final stage entails the implementation of the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach to evaluate the different options resulting from the LCA, LCCA and SLCA to propose the most sustainable flooring system by taking into consideration the combination of all the stated criteria.

Results and discussion

The result of the LCA indicates that wood flooring is the least environmental impact per functional unit as it causes fewer carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (17%) than the second least environmental impact per functional unit (laminated flooring). However, the result of the LCCA suggests that concrete flooring is the lowest costing system, i.e. 30% less than the second best option (wood flooring). On the other hand, the SLCA result indicates that laminated flooring is the least negative social impact with a 28% better score than concrete flooring. The results of the MCDM show that wood is the most sustainable floor system with a utility degree of 100%, higher than laminated flooring at 78%. However, in equal weighting scenario, laminated flooring is shown to be the best choice.

Conclusions

The presented approach in this research has been successfully applied on a case study. It provides valuable insight on the assessment of flooring systems so as to assist decision-makers and architects in prioritising and selecting the most sustainable flooring systems to be used in residential buildings in Malaysia. This methodology can be applied in other countries with a similar climate and cultural preferences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

LCA:

Life cycle assessment

LCC:

Life cycle cost

SLCA:

Social life cycle assessment

COPRAS:

Complex Proportional Assessment

MCDM:

Multi Criteria Decision Making

LCSA:

Life cycle sustainability assessment

MYR:

Malaysian ringgit

CO2 :

Carbon dioxide emission

PE:

Primary energy

GWP:

Global warming potential

OLD:

Ozone layer depletion

References

  • Ahmed IM, Tsavdaridis KD (2018) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost (LCC) studies of lightweight composite flooring systems. J Build Eng 20:624–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayrim Y, Atalay KD, Can GF (2018) A new stochastic MCDM approach based on COPRAS. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 17(3):857–882. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622018500116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balasbaneh AT, Bin Marsono AK, Kermanshahi E (2018a) Balancing of life cycle carbon and cost appraisal on alternative wall and roof design verification for residential building. Constr Innov 18:274–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balasbaneh AT, Yeoh D, Zainal Abidin AR (2020) Life cycle sustainability assessment of window renovations in schools against noise pollution in tropical climates. J Build Eng 32:101784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balasbaneh AT, Marsono AK, Khaleghi SJ (2018b) Sustainability choice of different hybrid timber structure for low medium cost single-story residential building: environmental, economic and social assessment. J Build Eng 20:235–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balasbaneh AT, Ramli MZ (2020) A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of concrete and steel-prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction structures in Malaysia. Environ Sci Pollut Res 43186–43201 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10141-3

  • Balasbaneh AT, Marsono AK (2020) Applying multi-criteria decision-making on alternatives for earth-retaining walls: LCA, LCC, and S-LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2140–2153 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01825-6

  • Benoît-Norris C et al (2011) Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):682–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0301-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoît C, Mazijn B (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Druk in de weer, Belgium.

  • Burck J, Marten F, Bals C, Hohne N (2018) Climate change performance index results 2018. Climate Action Network, Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute, pp 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Statistic M, (2017) Quarterly construction statistics. Retrieved from. Department of Statistics Malaysia. https://www.thebusinessyear.com/malaysia-2017/building-the-future/review. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.

  • Finkbeiner M, Schau EM, Lehmann A, Traverso TM (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2(10):3309–3322. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2103309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geng A, Zhang H, Yang H (2017) Greenhouse gas reduction and cost efficiency of using wood flooring as an alternative to ceramic tile: a case study in China. J Cleaner Prod 166:438–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Schryver A, Struijs JVZR, Van Zelm R (2009) A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. ReCiPe, The Hague, Ministry of VROM

    Google Scholar 

  • Horv SE, Szalay Z (2012) Decision-making case study for retrofit of high-rise concrete buildings based life cycle assessment scenarios, in: A. Ventura, C. De la Roche (Eds.), Int. Sym. Life Cycle Assess Con. civil Eng. Build, RILEM Publications SARL, Nantes, France, pp. 116e124.

  • Hosseinijou SA, Mansour S, Shirazi MA (2014) Social life cycle assessment for material selection: a case study of building materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0658-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard SS, Bowe SA (2010) A gate-to-gate life-cycle inventory of solid strip hardwood flooring in the eastern United States. Wood. Fiber. Sci. 42 (CORRIM Special Issue), 79e89.

  • IPCC (2014) In: Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L.A. (Eds.) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 151

  • Jørgensen A, Lai LCH, Hauschild M (2009) Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):5–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0131-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson A, Tillman AM, Svensson T (1998) Life cycle assessment of flooring materials: Case study. Doktorsavhandlingar vid Chalmers Tek. Hogsk 32:245–255 (1998)

  • Kaklauskas A, Zavadskas EK (2007) Decision support system for innovation with special emphasis on pollution.  Int J Environ Pollut 30(¾): 518–528

  • Kamali M, Hewage K (2016) Development of performance criteria for sustainability evaluation of modular versus conventional construction methods. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Mesa A, Pitarch A, Tomas T, Gallego, (2009) Comparison of environmental impacts of building structures with in situ cast floors and with precast concrete floors. Build Environ 44(4):699–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.05.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro H, Freire F (2012) Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls: comparison of three impact assessment methods. Energy Build 47:572–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.12.032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minne E, Crittenden JC (2015) Impact of maintenance on life cycle impact and cost assessment for residential flooring options. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:36–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0809-z

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Motuziene V, Rogoža A, Lapinskiene V, Vilutiene T (2016) Construction solutions for energy efficient single-family house based on its life cycle multi-criteria analysis: a case study. J Clean Prod 112:532–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nebel B, Zimmer B, Wegener G (2006) Life cycle assessment of wood floor coverings – a representative study for the German flooring industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(3):172–182. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2004.10.187

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brian M, Doig A, Clift R (1996) Social and environmental life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1(4):231–237

  • Oregi X, Hernandez P, Hernandez R (2017) Analysis of life-cycle boundaries for environmental and economic assessment of building energy refurbishment projects. Energy Build 136:12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.11.057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen AK, Solberg S (2003) Substitution between floor constructions in wood and natural stone: comparison of energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and costs over the life cycle. Can J For Res 33(6):1061–1075. https://doi.org/10.1139/x03-020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potting J, Blok K (1995) Life-cycle assessment of four types of floor covering. J Clean Prod 3(4):201–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-6526(95)00082-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen AK, Solberg B (2004) Greenhouse gas emissions and costs over the life cycle of wood and alternative flooring materials. Clim Change 64(1e2):143–167. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000024689.70143.79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pini M, Ferrari AM, Gamberini R, Neri P, Rimini B (2014) Life cycle assessment of a large, thin ceramic tile with advantageous technological properties. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1567–1580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0764-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reza B, Sadiq R, Hewage K (2011) Sustainability assessment of flooring systems in the city of Tehran: an AHP-based life cycle analysis. Constr Build Mater 25(4):2053–2066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reston VA (2006) 20190 ISO (International Standardization Organization), ISO 14040. Environmental Management Lifecycle Assessment Principles and Framework, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Shao L, Chen GQ, Chen ZM, Guo S, Han MY, Hayat ZB, T, Alsaedi A, Ahmad B, (2014) Systems accounting for energy consumption and carbon emission by building. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 19:1859–1873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2013.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP-SETAC, (2013). The Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). France, Paris.

  • United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2009) Buildings and climate change - summary for decision-makers.

  • Traverso M, Bell L, Saling P, Fontes J (2016) Towards social life cycle assessment: a quantitative product social impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(3):597–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1168-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traverso M (2018) Is social life cycle assessment really struggling in development or is it on a normal path towards harmonization/standardization? Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:199–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1387-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turskis Z, Zavadskas E, Peldschus F (2009) Multi-criteria optimization system for decision making in construction design and management. Eng Econ 1(61):7–17

    Google Scholar 

  • WBCSD (2017) Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Business Realities and Opportunities, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Available on http://www.wbcsd.org/

  • Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A (1996) “Determination of an efficient contractor by using the new method of multi criteria assessment”, In Langford, D. A.; Retik, A. (eds.) International Symposium for “The Organization and Management of Construction”. Shaping Theory and Practice. Vol. 2: Managing the Construction Project and Managing Risk. CIB W 65; London, Weinheim, New York, Tokyo, Melbourne, Madras. - London: E and FN SPON: 94-104, p.p. 94-104

Download references

Funding

The authors are grateful to Universiti Teknologi Malaysia for the financial support of this work through the grant Q.J130000.2651.16J85.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400, Parit Raja, Johor, Malaysia

    Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh, David Yeoh & Mohd Irwan Juki

  2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, 32610, Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia

    Adel Gohari

  3. Structure and Materials Department, School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia

    Ahmad Razin Zainal Abidin & Abdul Kadir Bin Marsono

Authors
  1. Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Yeoh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohd Irwan Juki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Adel Gohari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ahmad Razin Zainal Abidin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abdul Kadir Bin Marsono
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh.

Additional information

Communicated by Holger Wallbaum

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Balasbaneh, A.T., Yeoh, D., Juki, M.I. et al. Applying three pillar indicator assessments on alternative floor systems: life cycle study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26, 1439–1455 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01881-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01881-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation