Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Review of the Quantitative Analysis Methods for Social Life Cycle Assessment in Construction

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate (CRIOCM 2020)

  • 1615 Accesses

Abstract

The life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) of construction activities has become a subject of considerable interest globally. However, researchers are mainly devoted to analyzing economic and environmental impact assessment of buildings, and there is a lack of a review of the studies on social impact assessment. Therefore, this study aims to review the quantitative methods for social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) in construction through the bibliometric method. Most of the studies on social impact analysis have adopted qualitative and quantitative methods and this study mainly focuses on the studies that used quantitative analysis methods for social life cycle assessment owing to the space limitation. This study found that the research interest in the life cycle sustainability assessment is gradually rising, primarily focusing on case studies, method comparisons, and new frameworks. However, because social impact assessment has significant limitations in the quantification of inventory, the choice of indicators, and the method of impact assessment, this study proposes that the development of social impact factors in the construction field requires to make more extraordinary efforts in the development of new methods, new software, new technologies, decision-supporting tools, and databases.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. UNEP. Buildings and construction sector—Huge untapped potential for emission reductions. Available online: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/buildings-and-construction-sector-huge-untapped-potential-emission. Accessed on January 2, 2021.

  2. Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E. M., Lehmann, A., & Traverso, M. (2010). Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability, 2(10), 3309–3322.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kloepffer. W. (2008). Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), 89–95.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ciroth, A., Finkbeier, M., Hildenbrand, J., Klöpffer, W., Mazijn, B., Prakash, S., Sonnemann, G., Valdivia, S., Ugaya, C. M. L., & Vickery-Niederman, G. (2011). Towards a live cycle sustainability assessment: making informed choices on products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kruse, S. A., Flysjö, A., Kasperczyk, N., & Scholz, A. J. (2009). Socioeconomic indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment—an application to salmon production systems. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14(1), 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. UNEP. Guidelines-for-Social-Life-Cycle-Assessment-of-Products. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/guidelines-social-life-cycle-assessment-products. Accessed on January 2, 2021.

  7. Martínez-Blanco, J., Lehmann, A., Muñoz, P., Antón, A., Traverso, M., Rieradevall, J., & Finkbeiner, M. (2014). Application challenges for the social Life Cycle Assessment of fertilizers within life cycle sustainability assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 69, 34–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fan, L., Pang, B., Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Sun, Y., & Wang, Y. (2018). Evaluation for social and humanity demand on green residential districts in China based on SLCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(3), 640–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Liu, S., & Qian, S. (2019). Evaluation of social life-cycle performance of buildings: Theoretical framework and impact assessment approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 792–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Santos, P., Pereira, A. C., Gervásio, H., Bettencourt, A., & Mateus, D. (2017). Assessment of health and comfort criteria in a life cycle social context: Application to buildings for higher education. Building and Environment, 123, 625–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yasantha Abeysundara, U. G., & Babel, S. (2010). A quest for sustainable materials for building elements in Sri Lanka: Foundations. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 29(3), 370–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yung, P., & Wang, X. (2014). A 6D CAD model for the automatic assessment of building sustainability. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 11(8), 131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dong, Y. H., Ng, S. T. (2015). A social life cycle assessment model for building construction in Hong Kong. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(8),1166–1180.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Karatas, A., & El-Rayes, K. (2015). Optimizing tradeoffs among housing sustainability objectives. Automation in Construction, 53, 83–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Invidiata, A., Lavagna, M., & Ghisi, E. (2018). Selecting design strategies using multi-criteria decision making to improve the sustainability of buildings. Building and Environment, 139, 58–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kucukvar, M., Noori, M., Egilmez, G., & Tatari, O. (2014). Stochastic decision modeling for sustainable pavement designs. The international journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(6), 1185–1199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wu, M. H., Ng, T. S., & Skitmore, M. R. (2016). Sustainable building envelope design by considering energy cost and occupant satisfaction. Energy for Sustainable Development, 31, 118–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hosseinijou, S. A., Mansour, S., Shirazi, M. A.(2014). Social life cycle assessment for material selection: A case study of building materials. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(3), 620–645.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Balasbaneh, A. T., Marsono, A. K. B., & Khaleghi, S. J. (2018). Sustainability choice of different hybrid timber structure for low medium cost single-story residential building: Environmental, economic and social assessment. Journal of Building Engineering, 20, 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Flynn, K. M., & Traver, R. G. (2013). Green infrastructure life cycle assessment: A bio-infiltration case study. Ecological Engineering, 55, 9–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kalutara, P., Zhang, G., Setunge, S., & Wakefield, R. (2017). Factors that influence Australian community buildings’ sustainable management. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 24(1), 94–117.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fraile-Garcia, E., Ferreiro-Cabello, J., Martinez-Camara, E., & Jimenez-Macias, E. (2015). Adaptation of methodology to select structural alternatives of one-way slab in residential building to the guidelines of the European Committee for Standardization (CEN/TC 350). Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 55, 144–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Neto, J. V., & De Farias Filho, J. R. (2013). Sustainability in the civil construction industry: An exploratory study of life cycle analysis methods. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 16(5–6), 420–436.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Joglekar, S. N., Kharkar, R. A., Mandavgane, S. A., & Kulkarni, B. D. (2018). Sustainability assessment of brick work for low-cost housing: A comparison between waste based bricks and burnt clay bricks. Sustainable Cities and Society, 37, 396–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Saleem, M., Chhipi-Shrestha, G., Andrade, T. B., Dyck, R., Ruparathna, R., Hewage, K., & Sadiq, R. (2018). Life cycle thinking-based selection of building facades Journal of Architectural Engineering, 24(4), 04018029.

    Google Scholar 

  26. International Organization for Standardization. (2006). Environmental management: Life cycle assessment; principles and framework (No. 2006). ISO.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Navarro, I. J., Yepes, V., & Martí, J. V. (2018). Social life cycle assessment of concrete bridge decks exposed to aggressive environments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 72, 50–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mohaddes Khorassani, S., Ferrari, A. M., Pini, M., Settembre Blundo, D., García Muiña, F. E., García, J. F. (2019). Environmental and social impact assessment of cultural heritage restoration and its application to the Uncastillo Fortress. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(7), 1297–1318.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hossain, M. U., Poon, C. S., Dong, Y. H., Lo, I. M. C., & Cheng, J. C. P. (2018). Development of social sustainability assessment method and a comparative case study on assessing recycled construction materials. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(8), 1654–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dong, Y. H., & Ng, S. T. (2016). A modeling framework to evaluate sustainability of building construction based on LCSA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(4), 555–568.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ostermeyer, Y., Wallbaum, H., & Reuter, F. (2013). Multidimensional Pareto optimization as an approach for site-specific building refurbishment solutions applicable for life cycle sustainability assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(9), 1762–1779.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hu, M., Kleijn, R., Bozhilova-Kisheva, K. P., & Di Maio, F. (2013). An approach to LCSA: The case of concrete recycling. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(9), 1793–1803.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zheng, X., Easa, S. M., Yang, Z., Ji, T., & Jiang, Z. (2019). Life-cycle sustainability assessment of pavement maintenance alternatives: Methodology and case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 659–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wang, J., Wang, Y., Sun, Y., Tingley, D. D., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Life cycle sustainability assessment of fly ash concrete structures. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 80, 1162–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kono, J., Ostermeyer, Y., & Wallbaum, H. (2018). Trade-off between the social and environmental performance of green concrete: The case of 6 countries. Sustainability, 10(7), 2309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Liu, S., & Qian, S. (2019). Towards sustainability-oriented decision making: Model development and its validation via a comparative case study on building construction methods. Sustainable Development, 27(5), 860–872.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gencturk, B., Hossain, K., & Lahourpour, S. (2016). Life cycle sustainability assessment of RC buildings in seismic regions. Engineering Structures, 110, 347–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. AENOR for Standardization. (2015). UNE-EN 16309:Sustainability of construction works—Assessment of social performance of buildings—Calculation methodology.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Chang, Y., Ries, R. J., & Wang, Y. (2011). The quantification of the embodied impacts of construction projects on energy, environment, and society based on I-O LCA. Energy Policy, 39(10), 6321–6330.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Papong, S., Itsubo, N., Malakul, P., & Shukuya, M. (2015). Development of the social inventory database in Thailand using input–output analysis. Sustainability, 7(6), 7684–7713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2013). Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of the U.S. construction industry. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(5), 958–972.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Shi, X., Mukhopadhyay, A., Zollinger, D., & Grasley, Z. (2019). Economic input-output life cycle assessment of concrete pavement containing recycled concrete aggregate. Journal of Cleaner Production, 225, 414–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Choi, K., Lee, H. W., Mao, Z., Lavy, S., & Ryoo, B. Y. (2016). Environmental, economic, and social implications of highway concrete rehabilitation alternatives. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(2).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Onat, N. C., Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2014). Integrating triple bottom line input-output analysis into life cycle sustainability assessment framework: The case for US buildings. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(8), 1488–1505.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Leontief, W. (1986). Input-output economics. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ghimire, S. R., & Johnston, J. M. (2017). A modified eco-efficiency framework and methodology for advancing the state of practice of sustainability analysis as applied to green infrastructure. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 13(5), 821–831.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Yeheyis, M., Hewage, K., Alam, M. S., Eskicioglu, C., & Sadiq, R. (2013). An overview of construction and demolition waste management in Canada: A lifecycle analysis approach to sustainability. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 15(1), 81–91.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wang, Z., Jin, W., Dong, Y., & Frangopol, D. M. (2018). Hierarchical life-cycle design of reinforced concrete structures incorporating durability, economic efficiency and green objectives. Engineering Structures, 157, 119–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Castro, M. D. F., Mateus, R., & Bragança, L. (2017). Development of a healthcare building sustainability assessment method—Proposed structure and system of weights for the Portuguese context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, 555–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Malmgren, L., Elfborg, S., & Mjörnell, K. (2016). Development of a decision support tool for sustainable renovation—A case study. Structural Survey, 34(1), 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Matthews, N. E., Stamford, L., & Shapira, P. (2019). Aligning sustainability assessment with responsible research and innovation: Towards a framework for Constructive Sustainability Assessment. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 20, 58–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Margorínová, M., Trojanová, M., Decký, M., & Remišová, E. (2018). Noise costs from road transport. Civil and Environmental Engineering, 14(1), 12–20.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Amini, A. A., Mashayekhi, M., Ziari, H., & Nobakht, S. (2012). Life cycle cost comparison of highways with perpetual and conventional pavements. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 13(6), 553–568.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Babashamsi, P., Md Yusoff, N. I., Ceylan, H., Md Nor, N. G., Salarzadeh Jenatabadi, H. (2016). Evaluation of pavement life cycle cost analysis: Review and analysis. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 9(4), 241–254.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Pons, O., De la Fuente, A., & Aguado, A. (2016). The use of MIVES as a sustainability assessment MCDM method for architecture and civil engineering applications. Sustainability, 8(5), 460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lounis, Z., & McAllister, T. P. (2016). Risk-based decision making for sustainable and resilient infrastructure systems. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(9), F4016005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Bragança, L., Mateus, R., & Koukkari, H. (2010). Building sustainability assessment. Sustainability, 2(7), 2010–2023.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Lounis, Z., & Daigle, L. (2013). Multi-objective and probabilistic decision-making approaches to sustainable design and management of highway bridge decks. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9(4), 364–383.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ekener-Petersen, E., & Finnveden, G. (2013). Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part 1: a case study of a laptop computer. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(1), 127–143.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, 230009, Anhui, China

    X. Y. Jiang & X. R. Yao

  2. School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia

    S. N. Lyu

Authors
  1. X. Y. Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. X. R. Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. N. Lyu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to X. Y. Jiang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

    Xinhai Lu

  2. Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

    Zuo Zhang

  3. University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Weisheng Lu

  4. Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou, China

    Yi Peng

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Jiang, X.Y., Yao, X.R., Lyu, S.N. (2021). Review of the Quantitative Analysis Methods for Social Life Cycle Assessment in Construction. In: Lu, X., Zhang, Z., Lu, W., Peng, Y. (eds) Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate. CRIOCM 2020. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3587-8_86

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation