A program-level management system for the life cycle environmental and economic assessment of complex building projects

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 9–21

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

A program-level management system for the life cycle environmental and economic assessment of complex building projects Chan-Joong Kim a, Jimin Kim b, Taehoon Hong b,⁎, Choongwan Koo b, Kwangbok Jeong b, Hyo Seon Park b a b

Parsons Brinckerhoff, Seoul 135-763, Republic of Korea Department of Architectural Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 120-749, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 15 December 2014 Received in revised form 30 April 2015 Accepted 30 April 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: Program management Life cycle assessment Life cycle cost Complex building

a b s t r a c t Climate change has become one of the most significant environmental issues, of which about 40% come from the building sector. In particular, complex building projects with various functions have increased, which should be managed from a program-level perspective. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a program-level management system for the life-cycle environmental and economic assessment of complex building projects. The developed system consists of three parts: (i) input part: database server and input data; (ii) analysis part: life cycle assessment and life cycle cost; and (iii) result part: microscopic analysis and macroscopic analysis. To analyze the applicability of the developed system, this study selected ‘U’ University, a complex building project consisting of research facility and residential facility. Through value engineering with experts, a total of 137 design alternatives were established. Based on these alternatives, the macroscopic analysis results were as follows: (i) at the program-level, the life-cycle environmental and economic cost in ‘U’ University were reduced by 6.22% and 2.11%, respectively; (ii) at the project-level, the life-cycle environmental and economic cost in research facility were reduced 6.01% and 1.87%, respectively; and those in residential facility, 12.01% and 3.83%, respective; and (iii) for the mechanical work at the work-type-level, the initial cost was increased 2.9%; but the operation and maintenance phase was reduced by 20.0%. As a result, the developed system can allow the facility managers to establish the operation and maintenance strategies for the environmental and economic aspects from a program-level perspective. © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The Kyoto Protocol, which was established at the 3rd Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1997, became effective as an international agreement in February 2005 (Albino et al., 2009; Jeswani et al., 2008). The Kyoto Protocol recommended that the developed countries included in Annex I establish a national carbon emission reduction target (CERT) (Pan, 2005). South Korea is currently included in Non-Annex I under the PostKyoto Protocol (2013–2020), but it is expected that South Korea will have the responsibility for the greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Accordingly, the South Korean government established its national CERT as 30% below business-as-usual by 2020 (Hong et al., 2012a; Kim et al., 2012; Koo et al., 2014a). In particular, the South Korean government follows the global trend of greenhouse gas emissions reduction by establishing the “Act on the Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowances” and enacting the “emissions trading scheme” (18th Korean Congress, 2012; Hong et al., 2012b, 2013, 2014; Koo et al., 2014b). ⁎ Corresponding author at: Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120749, Republic of Korea.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.04.005 0195-9255/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Meanwhile, as the construction industry depends on the energyconsuming industries such as steel, cement, and power-generation, it will not be able to avoid the direct and indirect effects of the Kyoto Protocol. Thus, for the transition towards an eco-friendly industry system, it is required to conduct the environmental and economic assessments throughout the whole life cycle of a building construction project. Fragmentary approach to the environmental and economic aspects of building projects, however, may not be linked to the operational and maintenance strategies for the environmental and economic aspects from a program-level perspective (Nässén et al., 2007; Ramesh et al., 2010; Rebitzer and Hunkeler, 2003; Thormark, 2006). In addition, as complex building projects with various functions have increased, a program-level management system should be developed. Under such circumstances, several previous studies were conducted on the environmental impact assessment and life cycle assessment in the civil and construction industry, all the take together, which can be divided into three categories (Cabeza et al., 2014; Ortiz et al., 2009): (i) LCA tools and databases related to the civil and construction industry (Fiksel and Wapman, 1994; Norris, 2001; Paggio et al., 1999; Shokravi et al., 2014); (ii) LCA applications for civil and construction products' selection (Keoleian and Volk, 2005; Lloyd and Lave, 2003; Zhang et al., 2009) and (iii) LCA applications for civil and construction systems and

10

C.-J. Kim et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 9–21

process evaluation (Hong et al., 2009; Jeong et al., in press; Lim and Park, 2007; Schaltegger and Synnestvedt, 2002; Steen, 2005). • (i) Some studies were conducted on LCA tools and databases, which provided standardized assessment models and inventory data at multiple scales (Haapio and Viitaniemi, 2008; Singh et al., 2011). The scales range from industry-wide and sector-wide data down to product- and even brand-specific data as the following three levels (refer to Table 1) (Hong et al., 2014): (i) level-1 software (BEES, National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) U.S. life cycle inventory database, Simapro, and the Life cycle Explorer) (Lippiatt, 2000, 2007); (ii) level-2 software (whole-building decision support tools like Athena Eco-Calculator, and Envest 2); and (iii) level-3 software (whole-building assessment systems and frameworks such as Athena Impact Estimator, SUSB-LCA, BRE environmental assessment method, and the LEED rating system) (Lee et al., 2009). • (ii) Other studies were conducted on LCA applications for civil and construction products' selection. Aforementioned tools were considered highly effective in the environmental impact assessment for a single industrial product (Boehm et al., 1995; Durairaj et al., 2002; Forsberg and Von Malmborg, 2004; Gluch and Baumann, 2004; Hischier et al., 2014; Li, 2006; Salhofer et al., 2007). In applying the tools to the construction industry, however, it was limited to provide only a simple summation of the life-cycle environmental impact assessment (Jeong et al., in press; Mateus and Bragança, 2011; Norris and Yost, 2001; Yu-rong et al., 2009). • (iii) Other studies were conducted on LCA applications for civil and construction systems and process. Basically, in evaluating the environmental impacts of construction and buildings, it is required to consider more than a simple summation of individual product and material assessment (Cabeza et al., 2014). However, most of previous studies focused on the specific buildings in assessing the environmental impacts of construction industry (Blengini, 2009; Fay et al., 2000; Hacker et al., 2008; Keoleian et al., 2000; Monahan and Powell, 2011; Petersen and Solberg, 2002, 2005; Sartori and Hestnes, 2007; Scheuer et al., 2003; Thormark, 2002; Yohanis and Norton, 2002). Hacker et al. (2008) compared embodied and operational CO2 emissions from the only one domestic residential building by considering passive and active designs. Monahan and Powell (2011) conduct a partial LCA from cradle to the construction of a low energy house by considering an off-site panelized modular timber frame system.

Based on the aforementioned previous studies, there were two kinds of limitations. First, some studies analyzed the various types

of buildings, however, they evaluated the specific environmental impacts (e.g., global warming potential) (Kalogirou, 2009; Keoleian et al., 2005; Norman et al., 2006; Van der Lugt et al., 2006; Venkatarama Reddy and Jagadish, 2003; Zabalza Bribián et al., 2009). Norman et al. (2006) compared high- and low-populated buildings for their energy use and GHG emissions. The results showed that the choice of functional unit was highly related to the urban density effects. Zabalza Bribián et al. (2009) presented the main potential users who could apply the LCA tools in the early design phases of a building, but they only estimated global warming potential and energy consumption. Second, other studies evaluated the various types of environmental impacts, however, they did not apply the program-level management approach but conducted the design alternative analysis (Carlsson Reich, 2005; Cuéllar-Franca and Azapagic, 2014, 2012; Ding, 2008; Hu et al., 2004; Junnila et al., 2006; Khasreen et al., 2009; Malmqvist et al., 2011; Peuportier et al., 2013; Peuportier, 2001). Cuéllar-Franca and Azapagic (2012) used LCC and LCA to assess several environmental impacts for the life cycle of houses. Peuportier (2001) conducted the comparative analysis of single family houses using LCA for all life cycle phases and Peuportier et al. (2013) evaluated the energy and environmental benefit for the attached two-story passive houses. To address these challenges, this study defined the research scope as follows: (i) the scope of environmental impact assessment was defined from cradle to grave; and (ii) the scope of application scale was defined from microscopic (e.g., design alternatives) to macroscopic (e.g., program-level, project-level, and work-type-level). Based on the defined research scope, this study aimed to develop a program-level management system for the life-cycle environmental and economic assessment of complex building projects. The developed system would be innovative LCA practice and categorized into LCA methodological developments related to the building projects because it can be used to conduct the life-cycle environmental and economic assessment from two perspectives: (i) microscopic analysis (e.g., design alternatives): the individual analysis on various design alternatives which can be established through value engineering with architectural and engineering experts; and (ii) macroscopic analysis (e.g., program-level, project-level, and work-type-level): the multilateral analysis of integrating the microscopic analysis results into the worktype-level, project-level, and program-level, which can be used for establishing the operation and maintenance strategies from the environmental and economic perspective. To verify the applicability of the developed system, this study selected “U” University, which is a complex building project consisting of a research facility and a residential facility.

Table 1 Comparison of the LCA tools based on ATHENA classification. Class

Acceptable building type

Users of the tools

Phases of the life cycle Tool developer Databases of the tools

ATHENA classification

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Definition

Product comparison tools and information sources

Whole building design or decision support tools

Whole building assessment frameworks or systems

Assessment tools (representatives)

BEES 4.0

ATHENA™

LEED®

New building Building product/component Residential building (multi-unit) AEC professionals Producers of building products Investors, building owners Consultants Researchers Authorities Production Construction

– ● – ● ● – ● ● – ● – NIST; USA Generic data and brand specific

● – ● ● – – ● ● – ● ● ATHENA® Institute; Canada ATHENA Institute

● – ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● U.S. GBC; USA No database included

Source: Hong et al. (2014) (License number: 3580550680968; License date: Mar. 1, 2015; Licensed content publisher: Elsevier; and Licensed content publication: Applied Energy. This is a License Agreement provided by Copyright Clearance Center (CCC)).

C.-J. Kim et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 9–21

2. Materials and methods In conducting the life-cycle environmental and economic assessment in this study, the following two methods were used: (i) life cycle assessment (LCA), a method of calculating the environmental impacts throughout the whole life cycle of a building; and (ii) life cycle cost (LCC) analysis, a method of calculating the economic value throughout the whole life cycle of a building. First, for the LCA in this study, the system boundaries and assumptions were established, and then, the significance potential environmental impacts were calculated through life cycle inventory (LCI) and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Also, through life-cycle environmental cost analysis, the environmental impact was converted to environmental cost. Second, for the LCC analysis, the system boundaries and assumptions were established, and then, the basic information such as real discount rate and repair & replacement cycle was stored in the database server. Also, for the LCA and LCC analysis, this study defined the material and energy consumptions of each life-cycle of a building. 2.1. Logical structure of the developed system To overcome the limitations of the previous studies, this study developed a program-level management system for the life-cycle environmental and economic assessment of complex building projects, consisting of three parts below (refer to Fig. 1). • Part 1. Input: The data stored in the database server (assumptions for conducting LCA and LCC like real discount rate, repair & replacement cycle, and life cycle inventory for LCA) and the data entered by the user (material and energy consumption data like bill of quantity (BOQ) and building information) are loaded into the system through database link manager. The input data are linked into each phase of life cycle for the LCA and LCC analysis (refer to Section 2.2). • Part 2. Analysis: The LCA and LCC analysis logic processor and data error processor are used for conducting an analysis of the various design alternatives which are established through value engineering with architectural and engineering experts (refer to Sections 2.3 and 2.4). In logic processor, LCA and LCC analyses are conducted using input data from the Part 1, and the results are divided into 3 categories:

11

(i) environmental impact; (ii) environmental cost; and (iii) economic cost. The results are loaded into the Part 3 (result part) through report processor. Specific step by step scheme is shown in Fig. 4. • Part 3. Result: The life-cycle environmental and economic assessment results of a building are presented in the following two perspectives through the report processor: (i) microscopic analysis: the individual analysis on various design alternatives which are established through value engineering with architectural and engineering experts; and (ii) macroscopic analysis: the multilateral analysis of integrating the microscopic analysis results into the work-type-level, project-level, and program-level, which can be used for establishing the operation and maintenance strategies for the environmental and economic aspects from a program-level perspective (refer to Section 3).

2.2. Input data of the developed system The developed system can be used to conduct microscopic (e.g., design alternatives) and macroscopic (e.g., program-level, project-level, and work-type-level) analyses. Towards this end, before conducting LCA and LCC analysis, the input data were defined in the following life-cycle steps (refer to Fig. 2): (i) material manufacturing; (ii) material transportation; (iii) on-site construction; (iv) use & operation; (v) maintenance; and (vi) demolition and disposal phase (the demolition and disposal phase were divided into following four stages: (i) a building demolition stage; (ii) a transportation stage; (iii) a waste processing stage; and (iv) a landfill stage. Each of these stages was evaluated using the amount of waste produced per unit area). • Material data: In the material manufacturing and maintenance phase, environmental and economic assessment can be conducted using BOQs in the work-type-level (i.e., architecture, mechanical, electrical, civil, and landscape work) (Cuéllar-Franca and Azapagic, 2012; Lee et al., 2009). • Energy consumption data: For environmental and economic assessment, this study used the quantity of the energy source for producing materials in the material manufacturing and maintenance phase, for operating the construction equipment in the material transportation

Fig. 1. Logical structure of the developed system.

12

C.-J. Kim et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 9–21

Fig. 2. Input data of each phase of the life-cycle.

and on-site construction phase, and for utilizing the facilities in the use & operation phase. In addition, in demolition and disposal phase, the energy consumption by equipment was calculated from the waste quantity.

2.3. Establishment of system boundaries and assumptions for LCA To calculate the life-cycle environmental impact, the LCA process was conducted by following four steps stipulated by ISO 14040:

(i) goal and scope definition; (ii) life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis; (iii) life cycle impact assessment (LCIA); and (iv) results and interpretations (AIA, 2010; Jeong et al., 2014; Kosareo and Ries, 2007; Kumaran et al., 2001). Fig. 3 shows the system boundary of the LCA that dictates the breadth and depth as follows: (i) life cycle stages (incl. material manufacturing stage, construction state, use and maintenance state, and end of life state); (ii) building industry (incl. building level, product level, and material level); (iii) life cycle inventory (incl. emissions from material manufacturing, resources used for material manufacturing, and emission from energy combustion used in the whole life cycle);

Fig. 3. System boundary of the LCA.

C.-J. Kim et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 9–21

(iv) phase of design process (incl. design development stage); and (v) life cycle impact categories (incl. resource depletion potential (RDP), global warming potential (GWP), ozone layer depletion potential (ODP), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), and photochemical oxidation potential (POCP)). • Step 1. Goal and scope definition: Based on the information available in the whole life cycle, environmental impact generated from the material manufacturing phase to the demolition & disposal phase is calculated and analyzed. Hence, LCA is conducted from “cradle to grave”, including all activities to the evaluation of environmental impacts. The functional unit is defined as “the entire building supplied from design to demolition for a whole service life”. • Step 2. Life cycle inventory analysis: Using the LCI analysis results by life-cycle phase, the environmental-impact substances can be determined. First, using input–output (I–O) LCA, the quantity of the energy source used to produce the material for each life-cycle phase was calculated (refer to Eq. (1)). Next, using the national LCI database of South Korea established via process-based LCA, the environmentalimpact substances produced in the material and energy production process can be determined (refer to Eq. (2)).

Q Ek ¼

X CD j  PIC k j j

UP k

ð1Þ

where QEk is the quantity of energy source (k), CDj is the cost data for construction material (j), PICkj is the production inducement coefficient of energy source (k) required for manufacturing material (j), and UPk is the unit price of energy source (k).

Ei ¼

X

ðQ Ek  EP ik þ Q Ek  EC ik Þ

ð2Þ

k

where Ei is the emission of substance (i), EPik is the emission factor of substance (i) emitted in producing one unit of energy source (k), and ECik is the emission factor of substance (i) emitted in consuming one unit of energy source (k). • Step 3. Life cycle impact assessment: This process converts the environmental-impact substances from the LCI analysis into the environmental impacts. LCIA consists of classification, characterization, normalization, and weighting (AIA, 2010). In this study, classification and characterization were used to calculate the characterized environmental impact. Classification is the process to classify the environmentalimpact substances calculated via LCI analysis into the environmental impact categories. Characterization is the process to quantify the size of the environmental impact from each environmental-impact substance classified into the specific environmental-impact categories. Eq. (3) shows the process of classification and characterization. To calculate characterized impacts (CCIl), the characterization factor (CFl,i) of each substance is required. Based on the “environmental labeling type III” standard, the characterized environmental impacts on six environmental-impact categories (i.e., RDP, GWP, ODP, AP, EP, and POCP) were presented.

CCIl ¼

X

Ei  C F l;i

ð3Þ

i

where CCIl is the characterized impact of impact category (l), Ei is the emission of substance (i), and CFl,i is the characterization factor of substance (i) to impact category (l). • Step 4. Results and interpretations: Using the estimated environmental cost, an economic and environmental impact assessment is performed.

13

Environmental cost signifies the cost generated from the various social impacts caused by the environmental impact (AIA, 2010; Kosareo and Ries, 2007; Kumaran et al., 2001). In this study, the environmentalcost conversion factor proposed in EPS 2000 was used to convert the environmental impact to environmental cost (Steen, 1999) (refer to Table S1). By analyzing the relative degree of the impact on the global environment of the environmental-impact categories, all the environmental impacts can be converted into environmental cost.

2.4. Evaluation of the economic value using LCC For the calculation of the life-cycle economic value through LCC analysis, the following system boundaries and assumptions were established: (i) analysis approach; (ii) analysis period; (iii) interest rate; and (iv) significant cost of ownership. • First, analysis approach: As the contract method of “U” University, selected for the case study, is build-transfer-lease, it is required to assess the absolute life-cycle economic value for the design alternatives. Therefore, net present value (NPV) was selected as the analysis index. NPV is the method to convert the future value of a design alternative into the present value by considering the time value and the discount rate (refer to Eq. (4)). If NPV N 0, the business is deemed feasible; and if NPV = 0, the break-even point is deemed to have been reached (Koo et al., 2014b).

NPV ¼

n X BESt þ BET t t

t¼0

ð1 þ r Þ

n X CIt þ CRrt þ CRt t − ð1 þ r Þt t¼0

ð4Þ

where NPV is the net present value, BESt is the benefit from the energy savings in year t, BETt is the benefit from the emissions trading in year t, CIt is the cost of the initial investment in year t, CRrt is the cost of the repair work in year t, CRtt is the cost of the replacement work in year t, r is the real discount rate, and n is the period of the life-cycle analysis. • Second, analysis period: Generally, the analysis period for the LCC analysis can be established based on the contract period, which is based on the building's contract method, or on the standard service life, which is based on the building's structural type (Kim et al., 2014). In this study, the contract period of the build-transfer-lease (i.e., 65 years, the contract period of “U” University) was used to establish the analysis period for the LCC analysis. • Third, interest rate: In this study, reflecting the nominal interest rate and various inflation rates, the real discount rate was calculated using Eq. (5). It can be used for converting various benefits and costs into present values.

i¼

ð1 þ in Þ −1 ð1 þ f Þ

ð5Þ

where i is the real discount rate, in is the nominal interest rate, and f is the inflation rate (i.e., electricity price growth rate, gas price growth rate, carbon dioxide emission trading price growth rate). • Fourth, significant cost of ownership: From the life-cycle perspective, the initial investment cost and the operation and maintenance cost need to be considered. Therefore, this study established the database in terms of the material and energy consumptions. The material consumption information was collected from the BOQs at the work-typelevel of the construction project (i.e., architecture, mechanical, electrical, civil, and landscape work). The energy consumption information, on the other hand, was established through energy simulation, which was allocated to the energy cost among the operation costs. Meanwhile,

14

C.-J. Kim et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 9–21

Fig. 4. Graphical user interface of the developed system.

C.-J. Kim et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 9–21

the repair rate, repair cycle, and replacement cycle of each material should be considered to calculate the cost in the maintenance phase. In this study, information such as “Implementing Regulations of the Housing Act in Korea (Appendix 5)”, “Public Procurement Service,” and “Ministry of National Defense,” which are provided by respectable institutions, was used.

15

processing of waste material in the demolition and disposal phase. In addition, Table S3 shows the characteristics of the demolition and disposal equipment that were used in this process (Jeong et al., 2014). • Section 5. Results: For life-cycle environmental and economic assessment, visualized results were provided as tables and figures, which can be divided into two perspectives: (i) microscopic analysis (e.g., design alternatives); and (ii) macroscopic analysis (i.e., programlevel, project-level, work-type-level).

2.5. Graphical user interface of the developed system The following three functional requirements were considered in establishing the developed system: (i) compatibility; (ii) convenience; and (iii) stability. • First, compatibility: Using Microsoft Excel, the basis for the developed system was established, and Microsoft MS-SQL was used to establish the database server. As such, an attempt was made to acquire the compatibility of the developed system by using Microsoft programs, widely used in the industry. • Second, convenience: According to the three steps of Input–Analysis– Result (refer to Section 2.1), the graphic user interface (GUI) was established, and the input data could be easily entered through the pop-up window. Also, the system was designed to enable the automatic linking of the detailed items of the BOQs to the system boundaries and assumptions for LCA and LCC analysis (e.g., LCI database and repair & replacement cycle, etc.) that are established on the database server. Through such functions, an attempt was made to achieve the convenience of the development system. • Third, stability: As explained in Section 2.1, the developed system consists of the three steps of Input–Analysis–Result. On the step-by-step process, the data error processor for checking input data errors was developed. Through this function, an attempt was made to achieve the stability of the development system.

As such, considering the three functional requirements, this study developed a system, consisting of five sections. Fig. 4 shows the key GUIs by step. • Section 1. Type of analysis: Two types of analyses: (i) microscopic analysis, which is the individual analysis on various design alternatives which are established through value engineering with architectural and engineering experts; and (ii) macroscopic analysis, which is the multilateral analysis of integrating the microscopic analysis results into the work-type-level, project-level, and program-level. • Section 2. Building information and assumption: To conduct life-cycle environmental and economic assessment, the following information and assumptions should be established: (i) basic information (e.g., project name, location, structure type, and total floor area); (ii) the system boundaries and assumptions for LCA (e.g., LCI database and environmental-cost conversion factor); and (iii) the system boundaries and assumptions for LCC analysis (e.g., analysis approach, analysis period, interest rate, and significant cost of ownership). • Sections 3 and 4. Analysis: From the life-cycle perspective, the developed system consists of three phases: (i) design and on-site construction phase, where analysis is conducted on the detailed items of BOQ by linking them to the system boundaries and assumptions for LCA and LCC analysis, which are established on the database server; (ii) operation & maintenance phase, where analysis is conducted on the monthly energy consumption data by linking them to the system boundaries and assumptions for LCA and LCC analysis, which are established on the database server; and (iii) disposal and demolition phase, where analysis is conducted on the detailed items of BOQ of design and on-site construction phase according to the type of waste material and recycling ratio. The energy consumed by equipment is calculated from the waste quantity. Table S2 shows the rate of waste discharge in public buildings (CAK, 2010) and Fig. S1 shows the

3. Model application To verify the applicability of the developed system, a target facility was selected by considering the following criteria: (i) from the microscopic perspective, this study selected a building of which the detailed information is available to establish various design alternatives; and (ii) from the macroscopic perspective, this study selected a complex building of which the detailed information is available to conduct the analysis in the program, project, and work-type levels. Based on these criteria, “U” University located in Ulsan, South Korea was selected (refer to Table 2). “U” University, the target facility for the case study, is a program-level complex building project and was constructed based on the contract method of build-transfer-lease. As shown in Table 2, at the programlevel, it consists of a research facility and a residential facility. At the project-level, it consists of research facilities like lecture rooms, a laboratory, and a cafeteria, and residential facilities like faculty and researcher apartments. At the work-type-level, it consists of architecture, mechanical, electrical, civil, and landscape works for each project. In addition, design drawings and BOQs were collected at the work-type-level. In this study, it was assumed that value engineering would improve the environmental and economic value, while maintaining the functionality and performance of the original design. The design alternatives established in this process were classified based on the program, project, and work-type levels. That is, the model application was conducted from two perspectives: (i) microscopic analysis and (ii) macroscopic analysis. • Microscopic analysis (e.g., design alternatives): Individual analyses of the 137 design alternatives established through value engineering with architectural and engineering experts were conducted. Among such design alternatives, the analysis of the heat source and the heating and cooling system (included in the research facility), which accounts for a considerable percentage of the building energy consumption, was presented as a representative case. • Macroscopic analysis (e.g., program-level, project-level, and worktype-level): The multilateral analysis was conducted to integrate the 137 design alternatives in the microscopic perspective into the work-type, project, and program levels. Through this process, the operation and maintenance strategies for the environmental and economic aspects from a program-level perspective were established.

4. Results and discussion 4.1. Microscopic analysis 4.1.1. Value engineering results To maximize the effects of the design alternatives established through value engineering, a value engineering team consisting of experts with experience related to “U” University was established. Also, to conduct in-depth environmental and economic assessment in the operation & maintenance phase, which is considered as the key factor in the success of the build-transfer-lease method, “U” University's contract method, LCA and LCC teams were established. The value engineering was conducted in the three aspects of economics, functionality, and convenience.

16

C.-J. Kim et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 9–21

Table 2 Detailed description of ‘U’ University as a case study. Project-level

Work-type-level

Research facility (lecture room, laboratory, and cafeteria)

Architecture Mechanical Electrical Civil Landscape

Residential facility (faculty and researcher apartment) Sum

Table 3 shows a summary of the design alternatives established through value engineering, resulting in a total of 137 design alternatives. 4.1.2. Design alternative analysis Among the 137 design alternatives established through value engineering, the analysis results of the heat source and heating and cooling system in the research facility, which accounts for a considerable percentage of the building energy consumption, are presented as an example. The original design of the heat source and heating and cooling system consisted of an electrical-engine-driven heat pump in the lecture room and a gas-engine-driven heat pump in the laboratory. Through the value engineering, design alternatives were established to reduce the gas-engine-drive heat pumps and to introduce ground source heat pumps, which can finally reduce the energy cost in the operation & maintenance phase. Table 4 shows the results of the design alternative analysis on the heat source and heating and cooling system in the research facility. The analysis results can be presented in the following three aspects: (i) life cycle environmental impact; (ii) life cycle environmental cost; and (iii) life cycle economic cost. • First, life cycle environmental impact: A life-cycle environmental impact saving effect was determined between 7.91% (i.e., eutrophication potential) and 35.37% (i.e., photochemical oxidation potential) by environmental-impact category. • Second, life cycle environmental cost: The total saving effect was 16.7%, saving US$ 1,970,000. A life-cycle environmental impact saving effect was determined between 9.5% (i.e., eutrophication potential) and 35.10% (i.e., photochemical oxidation potential) by environmental-impact category. • Third, life cycle economic cost: The total saving effect was 12.2%, saving US$ 3,120,000. While about US$ 910,000 of the initial investment cost was additionally used, about US$ 4,030,000 of the operation & maintenance cost could be saved.

In conclusion, compared to the original design, the design alternatives of the heat source and heating and cooling system in the research facility (i.e., ground source heat pump) were shown to be advantageous in the life-cycle environmental and economic aspects. As such, using the developed system, the study could conduct the design alternative analysis in the environmental and economic aspects by phase of the project, from design to the operation & maintenance phase. 4.2. Macroscopic analysis “U” University consists of two projects at the program-level (i.e., research facility and residential facility), five functions at the project-level (i.e. lecture room, laboratory, cafeteria, faculty apartment, and researcher apartment), and five work-type-level (i.e. architecture, mechanical, electrical, civil, and landscape). In this study, six environmental-impact categories (i.e., RDP, GWP, ODP, AP, EP, and POCP) were analyzed at each level of the aforementioned breakdown structure. Accordingly, for the life-cycle environmental and economic assessment on “U” University, the analysis should be conducted on at least 300 aspects (2 × 5 × 5 × 6). As a result, to integrate the results of the

Total floor area (m2)

Construction cost (US$)

80,312

106,266,000

21,005

18,477,000

101,317

124,743,000

microscopic analysis (i.e., design alternative analysis) from 300 perspectives, this study aimed to develop a program-level management system for the life-cycle environmental and economic assessment of complex building projects. Meanwhile, as mentioned in Section 4.1, a total of 137 design alternatives were established in this study through value engineering with architectural and engineering experts. In particular, this study conducted LCA and LCC analysis from “cradle to grave”, and the environmental and economic implications in the demolition and disposal phase were calculated by calculating waste quantity in architecture work-type. These results can be categorized into the program, project, and worktype levels, as shown below. 4.2.1. Program-level analysis At the program-level, the results of implementing a total of 137 design alternatives showed that the life-cycle environmental and economic costs were reduced by US$ 3,105,730 (saving ratio: 6.22%) and US$ 2,633,461 (saving ratio: 2.11%), respectively (refer to Fig. 5). As such, using the developed system, the life-cycle environmental and economic analysis results of the 137 design alternatives from the microscopic perspective can be integrated into the program-level analysis results (i.e., “U” University) from the macroscopic perspective. Meanwhile, by environmental-impact category, the POCP dropped from US$ 1,132,612 to US$ 925,379, saving about US$ 207,232 (saving ratio: 18.27%) (refer to Table 5). 4.2.2. Project-level analysis At the project-level, the life-cycle environmental and economic costs of the research facility were reduced by US$ 2,808,000 (saving ratio: 6.01%) and US$ 1,987,000 (saving ratio: 1.87%), respectively. In addition, the life-cycle environmental and economic costs of the residential facility were reduced by US$ 22,000 (saving ratio: 12.01%) and US$ 61,000 (saving ratio: 3.83%), respectively. Finally, the life-cycle environmental and economic costs of the common space were reduced by US$ 276,000 (saving ratio: 9.17%) and US$ 584,000 (saving ratio: 3.45%), respectively (refer to Fig. 5). As such, using the developed system, the life-cycle environmental and economic analysis results of the 137 design alternatives from the microscopic perspective can be integrated into the Table 3 Summary of design alternatives through value engineering. Project-level

Work-type-level Classification

Sum

Economics Functionality Convenience Research facility

Residential facility

Common space

Sum

Architecture Mechanical Electrical Civil Landscape Architecture Mechanical Electrical Landscape Architecture Mechanical Electrical Civil Landscape

8 5 2 1 – 1 2 – 2 2 7 5 2 2 39

11 3 3 – 4 4 5 1 1 – 11 11 1 5 60

11 1 7 – 1 2 1 – 3 1 4 4 1 2 38

30 9 12 1 5 7 8 1 6 3 22 20 4 9 137

C.-J. Kim et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 9–21

17

Table 4 Design alternative analysis on the heat source and heating & cooling system in research facility.

Classification Life cycle environ– mental impact

Life cycle environ– mental cost

Environmental impact category

Environmental impact (unit)

RDP (kg–Sb–eq)

GWP (kg–CO2–eq)

AP (kg–SO2–eq)

EP (kg–PO43–eq)

POCP (kg–C2H4–eq)

Original design

627

137,626

0.20

258,777

34,122

492,068

Design alternative

455

117,985

0.13

219,235

31,423

318,001

Saving ratio

27.43%

14.27%

35.00%

15.28%

7.91%

35.37%

Environmental impact (unit)

RDP (US$)

GWP (US$)

ODP (US$)

AP (US$)

EP (US$)

POCP (US$)

Original design

705,738

10,480,915

19

4264

495

609,114

Design alternative

512,746

8,915,358

13

3545

448

395,130

Saving ratio

27.30%

14.90%

30.30%

16.90%

9.50%

35.10%

Total saving Life cycle phase (unit) Life cycle economic cost

ODP (kg–CFC11–eq)

16.7% (US$ 1,970,000) Initial investment cost(US$)

Operation & maintenance cost (US$)

Total (US$)

Original design

5,195,117

20,446,417

25,641,534

Design alternative

6,105,204

16,414,463

22,519,666

Saving cost

+910,087

–4,031,954

Total saving

12.2% (US$ 3,120,000)

Note: EHP stands for electricity engine-driven heat pump; GHP stands for gas engine-driven heat pump; GSHP stands for ground source heat pump; resource depletion potential (RDP); global warming potential (GWP); ozone layer depletion potential (ODP); acidification potential (AP); eutrophication potential (EP); and photochemical oxidation potential (POCP).

project-level analysis results (i.e., research facility, residential facility, and common space) from the macroscopic perspective.

4.2.3. Work-type-level analysis At the work-type-level, it was shown that when the original design was used, the life-cycle environmental and economic costs of the architecture work were the highest. The results of implementing the 137 design alternatives showed that about US$ 551,000 of the lifecycle environmental cost of the architecture work was saved (saving ratio; 1.66%), but the life-cycle economic cost increased by about US$ 1,986,000 (saving ratio: − 2.97%). Meanwhile, the life-cycle environmental and economic costs of the civil work were reduced by US$ 158,000 (saving ratio: 42.77%) and US$ 1,122,000 (saving ratio: 44.74%), respectively (refer to Fig. 6 and Table 5). As such, using the developed system, the life-cycle environmental and economic analysis results of the 137 design alternatives from the microscopic perspective can be integrated into the work-type-level

analysis results (i.e., architecture, mechanical, electrical, civil, and landscape work) from the macroscopic perspective. 4.2.4. Operation and maintenance strategies from a program-level perspective The developed system can allow the facility managers of complex building projects to establish operation and maintenance strategies for the environmental and economic aspects from a program-level perspective (refer to Table 6). • At the program-level (i.e., “U” University): In implementing a total of 137 design alternatives, from the life-cycle environmental and economic cost perspective, the initial cost increased by US$ 3,784,000 (saving rate: −6.2%) but the operation & maintenance cost decreased by US$ 8,992,000 (saving rate: 7.9%). As a result, the implementation of the 137 design alternatives saved US$ 5,738,000 in terms of the lifecycle environmental and economic cost (saving rate: 3.3%). In the build-transfer-lease method, the contract method for “U” University,

Fig. 5. Program-level and project-level analysis.

18

C.-J. Kim et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 9–21

Table 5 Life-cycle environmental and economic cost at the work-type level.

Environmental impact category

Work–type– level

Classification

RDP (kg–Sb–eq)

GWP (kg–CO2–eq)

Original design

315,520

Architecture

Design alternative

318,026

Mechanical

Electrical

Civil

Landscape

Total

Environmental cost

Economic cost

ODP (kg–CFC11–eq)

AP (kg–SO2–eq)

EP (kg–PO43–eq)

POCP (kg–C2H4–eq)

7,444,123

25,076,176

6438

9162

347,783

33,199,202

66,778,000

7,580,222

24,659,579

6495

9009

349,099

32,648,395

68,763,539

Saving

–0.79%

–1.83%

1.66%

–0.89%

1.66%

–0.38%

1.66%

–2.97%

Original design

787,047

12,932,681

44

6635

665

687,176

14,414,249

41,513,000

Design alternative

580,810

10,660,752

35

5325

589

468,476

11,715,987

36,273,000

Saving

26.20%

17.60%

21.70%

19.70%

11.40%

31.80%

18.70%

12.62%

Original design

73,069

1,551,583

25

1415

132

74,109

1,700,332

12,285,000

Design alternative

86,042

1,837,950

30

1670

155

86,703

2,012,550

13,929,000

Saving

–17.80%

–18.50%

–18.80%

–18.00%

–17.50%

–17.00%

–18.40%

–13.38%

Original design

14,295

343,923

21

320

25

10,690

369,275

2,508,000

Design alternative

8,158

196,605

11

184

15

6366

211,339

1,386,000

Saving

42.90%

42.80%

48.20%

42.60%

41.90%

40.40%

42.80%

44.74%

Original design

13,435

196,203

9

161

18

12,853

222,679

1,660,000

Design alternative

12,782

183,998

7

193

21

14,735

211,736

1,759,000

Saving

4.90%

6.20%

15.80%

–19.80%

–17.30%

–14.60%

4.90%

–5.96%

Original design

1,203,366

22,468,513

25,076,275

14,969

10,002

1,132,611

49,905,737

124,744,000

Alternative

1,005,818

20,459,527

24,659,662

13,867

9789

925,379

46,800,007

122,110,539

Saving

16.35%

8.47%

1.66%

6.15%

1.88%

18.27%

6.22%

2.11%

Note: Unit (US$); resource depletion potential (RDP); global warming potential (GWP); ozone layer depletion potential (ODP); acidification potential (AP); eutrophication potential (EP); and photochemical oxidation potential (POCP).

the management of the operation & maintenance cost is the critical success factor. Therefore, it can be determined that the use of the 137 design alternatives was very successful. • For the mechanical work at the work-type-level: In implementing a total of 39 design alternatives for the mechanical work (refer to Table 3), from the life-cycle environmental and economic cost perspective, the initial cost increased by US$ 410,000 (saving rate: −2.9%), but the operation & maintenance cost decreased by US$ 8,348,000 (saving rate: 20.0%). As a result, the implementation of the 39 design alternatives for the mechanical work saved US$ 7,938,000 in terms of the life-cycle environmental and economic cost (saving rate: 14.2%). In the build-transfer-lease method, the contract method for “U” University, the management of the operation & maintenance cost is the critical success factor. Therefore, it can be determined that the use of the 39 design alternatives for the mechanical work was very successful.

5. Conclusions This study aimed to develop a program-level management system for the life-cycle environmental and economic assessment of complex building projects. The developed system consists of three parts: (i) input part: database server and input data; (ii) analysis part: life-cycle assessment and life-cycle cost analysis; and (iii) result part: microscopic analysis (e.g., design alternatives) and macroscopic analysis (e.g., program-level, project-level, and work-type-level). To verify the applicability of the developed system, “U” University, a complex building project consisting of a research facility and a residential facility, was selected. The analysis results can be summarized as follows. • Microscopic analysis (e.g., design alternatives): Through value engineering with architectural and engineering experts, a total of 137 design

Fig. 6. Work-type-level analysis.

C.-J. Kim et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 9–21 Table 6 Life-cycle environmental and economic cost at work-type level by life-cycle phase. Original design (US$ 1,000)

Design alternative (US$ 1,000)

Saving cost (US$ 1,000)

Saving ratio (%)

Initial cost Operation and maintenance cost Life–cycle cost

35,356

37,681

–2325

–6.6%

64,621

64,261

360

0.6%

99,977

101,412

–1435

–1.4%

Initial cost Operation and maintenance cost Life–cycle cost

14,127

14,536

–410

–2.9%

41,801

33,453

8348

20.0%

55,927

47,989

7938

14.2%

Work–type level

Life cycle phase

Architecture

Mechanical

Electrical

Initial cost Operation and maintenance cost Life–cycle cost

Civil

Initial cost Operation and maintenance cost Life–cycle cost

195 2878

Initial cost Operation and maintenance cost Life–cycle cost

800

1148

Landscape

Sum

Initial cost Operation and maintenance cost Life–cycle cost

8093

10,081

–1988

–24.6%

5892

5861

31

0.5%

13,985

15,941

–1956

–14.0%

2682

1396

1286

48.0%

201

–6

–3.2%

1597

1280

44.5%

–348

–43.6%

1082

823

260

24.0%

1882

1971

–89

–4.7%

61,058

64,842

–3,784

–6.2%

113,591

104,599

8992

7.9%

174,649

168,911

5738

3.3%

alternatives were established. Among the 137 design alternatives, the analysis of the heat source and the heating and cooling system in the research facility was presented as a representative analysis case. The life-cycle environmental and economic costs were reduced by US$ 1,970,000 (saving ratio: 16.7%) and US$ 3,120,000 (saving ratio: 12.2%), respectively. • Macroscopic analysis (e.g., program-level, project-level, and worktype-level): Based on the 137 design alternatives, the macroscopic analysis results were as follows: (i) at the program-level, the lifecycle environmental and economic costs of “U” University were reduced by US$ 3,105,730 (saving ratio: 6.22%) and US$ 2,633,461 (saving ratio: 2.11%), respectively; (ii) at the project-level, the life-cycle environmental and economic costs of the research facility were reduced by US$ 2,808,000 (saving ratio: 6.01%) and US$ 1,987,000 (saving ratio: 1.87%), respectively, and those of the residential facility, by US$ 22,000 (saving ratio: 12.01%) and US$ 61,000 (saving ratio: 3.83%); and (iii) for the mechanical work at the work-typelevel, the initial cost was increased by US$ 410,000 (saving rate: − 2.9%), but the operation & maintenance phase cost was reduced by US$ 8,348,000 (saving rate: 20.0%).

The results of the developed system are not mere summation of analyses for a program level analysis but microscopic analysis (e.g. design alternatives) and macroscopic analysis (e.g. program-level, project-level, and work-type-level). In addition, the proposed system, which is developed to conduct the “cradle to grave” life cycle assessment and cost analysis at the same time, is worth for the final end user such as designer or construction manager. Therefore, the developed system would be innovative LCA practice and can be categorized into LCA methodological developments related to the construction industry. In conclusion, it is expected that the developed system (i.e., a program-level management system for the life-cycle environmental and economic assessment of complex building projects) could help the facility managers of complex building projects in establishing operation and maintenance strategies for the environmental and economic aspects from a program-level perspective. Based on the established operation and maintenance strategies, the developed system could be useful for contractors in competitive bidding processes for analyzing the design alternatives from the life-cycle perspective.

19

Meanwhile, the practicality of the proposed system would be improved by considering the following issues in the future studies. • On the other materials including screw fixings, finishing and mechanical electrical plumbing besides the reinforced concrete frame (i.e., reinforced concrete, steel frame, and steel reinforced concrete) in the demolition and disposal phase (end-of-life stage). • On the recycling potential of design alternative in terms of the material selection.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP; Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning) (No. NRF-2012R1A2A1A01004376 & No. 2012-0001247). Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.04.005. References Albino, V., Balice, A., Dangelico, R.M., 2009. Environmental strategies and green product development: an overview on sustainability‐driven companies. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 18 (2), 83–96. Blengini, G.A., 2009. Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: a case study in Turin, Italy. Build. Environ. 44 (2), 319–330. Boehm, B., Clark, B., Horowitz, E., Westland, C., Madachy, R., Selby, R., 1995. Cost models for future software life cycle processes: COCOMO 2.0. Ann. Softw. Eng. 1 (1), 57–94. Cabeza, L.F., Rincón, L., Vilariño, V., Pérez, G., Castell, A., 2014. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29, 394–416. CAK (Construction Association of Korea), 2010. General Information for Construction (Seoul, South Korea). Carlsson Reich, M., 2005. Economic assessment of municipal waste management systems—case studies using a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC). J. Clean. Prod. 13 (3), 253–263. Cuéllar-Franca, R.M., Azapagic, A., 2012. Environmental impacts of the UK residential sector: life cycle assessment of houses. Build. Environ. 54, 86–99. Cuéllar-Franca, R.M., Azapagic, A., 2014. Life cycle cost analysis of the UK housing stock. Int. J. LCA 19 (1), 174–193. Ding, G.K., 2008. Sustainable construction—the role of environmental assessment tools. J. Environ. Manag. 86 (3), 451–464. Durairaj, S.K., Ong, S.K., Nee, A.Y.C., Tan, R.B.H., 2002. Evaluation of life cycle cost analysis methodologies. Corp. Environ. Strateg. 9 (1), 30–39. Fay, R., Treloar, G., Iyer-Raniga, U., 2000. Life-cycle energy analysis of buildings: a case study. Build. Res. Inf. 28 (1), 31–41. Fiksel, J., Wapman, K., 1994. How to design for environment and minimize life cycle cost. Electronics and the Environment, IEEE. Int. Symp, pp. 75–80. Forsberg, A., Von Malmborg, F., 2004. Tools for environmental assessment of the built environment. Build. Environ. 39 (2), 223–228. Gluch, P., Baumann, H., 2004. The life cycle costing (LCC) approach: a conceptual discussion of its usefulness for environmental decision-making. Build. Environ. 39 (5), 571–580. Haapio, A., Viitaniemi, P., 2008. A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 28 (7), 469–482. Hacker, J.N., De Saulles, T.P., Minson, A.J., Holmes, M.J., 2008. Embodied and operational carbon dioxide emissions from housing: a case study on the effects of thermal mass and climate change. Energ. Buildings 40 (3), 375–384. Hischier, R., Achachlouei, M.A., Hilty, L.M., 2014. Evaluating the sustainability of electronic media: strategies for life cycle inventory data collection and their implications for LCA results. Environ. Model Softw. 56, 27–36. Hong, J., Hong, J., Otaki, M., Jolliet, O., 2009. Environmental and economic life cycle assessment for sewage sludge treatment processes in Japan. Waste Manag. 29 (2), 696–703. Hong, T., Koo, C., Jeong, K., 2012a. A decision support model for reducing electric energy consumption in elementary school facilities. Appl. Energy 95, 253–266. Hong, T., Koo, C., Park, S., 2012b. A decision support model for improving a multi-family housing complex based on CO2 emission from gas energy consumption. Build. Environ. 52, 142–151. Hong, T., Kim, J., Lee, J., Koo, C., Park, H.S., 2013. Assessment of seasonal energy efficiency strategies of a double skin façade in a monsoon climate region. Energies 6 (9), 4352–4376. Hong, T., Koo, C., Lee, S., 2014. Benchmarks as a tool for free allocation through comparison with similar projects: focused on multi-family housing complex. Appl. Energy 114, 663–675.

20

C.-J. Kim et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 9–21

Hu, Z., Pu, G., Fang, F., Wang, C., 2004. Economics, environment, and energy life cycle assessment of automobiles fueled by bio-ethanol blends in China. Renew. Energy 29 (14), 2183–2192. Jeong, K., Ji, C., Koo, C., Hong, T., Park, H.S., 2015. A model for predicting the environmental impacts of educational facilities in the project planning phase. J. Clean. Prod. (in press). Jeswani, H.K., Wehrmeyer, W., Mulugetta, Y., 2008. How warm is the corporate response to climate change? Evidence from Pakistan and the UK. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 17 (1), 46–60. Junnila, S., Horvath, A., Guggemos, A.A., 2006. Life-cycle assessment of office buildings in Europe and the United States. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 12 (1), 10–17. Kalogirou, S., 2009. Thermal performance, economic and environmental life cycle analysis of thermosiphon solar water heaters. Sol. Energy 83 (1), 39–48. Keoleian, G.A., Volk, T.A., 2005. Renewable energy from willow biomass crops: life cycle energy, environmental and economic performance. BPTS 24 (5-6), 385–406. Keoleian, G.A., Blanchard, S., Reppe, P., 2000. Life‐cycle energy, costs, and strategies for improving a single‐family house. J. Ind. Ecol. 4 (2), 135–156. Keoleian, G.A., Kendall, A., Dettling, J.E., Smith, V.M., Chandler, R.F., Lepech, M.D., Li, V.C., 2005. Life cycle modeling of concrete bridge design, comparison of engineered cementitious composite link slabs and conventional steel expansion joints. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 11 (1), 51–60. Khasreen, M.M., Banfill, P.F., Menzies, G.F., 2009. Life-cycle assessment and the environmental impact of buildings: a review. Sustainability 1 (3), 674–701. Kim, J., Hong, T., Koo, C., 2012. Economic and environmental evaluation model for selecting the optimum design of green roof systems in elementary schools. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (15), 8475–8483. Kim, J., Koo, C., Kim, C., Hong, T., Park, H.S., 2015. Integrated CO2, cost, and schedule management system for building construction projects using the earned value management theory. J. Clean. Prod. (in press). Koo, C., Hong, T., Park, H.S., Yun, G., 2014a. Framework for the analysis of the potential of the rooftop photovoltaic system to achieve the net‐zero energy solar buildings. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 22 (4), 462–478. Koo, C., Park, S., Hong, T., Park, H.S., 2014b. An estimation model for the heating and cooling demand of a residential building with a different envelope design using the finite element method. Appl. Energy 115, 205–215. Kosareo, L., Ries, R., 2007. Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of green roofs. Build. Environ. 42 (7), 2606–2613. Kumaran, D.S., Ong, S.K., Tan, R.B., Nee, A.Y.C., 2001. Environmental life cycle cost analysis of products. Environ. Manag. Health 12 (3), 260–276. Lee, K., Tae, S., Shin, S., 2009. Development of a life cycle assessment program for building (SUSB-LCA) in South Korea. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (8), 1994–2002. Li, Z., 2006. A new life cycle impact assessment approach for buildings. Build. Environ. 41 (10), 1414–1422. Lim, S., Park, J., 2007. Environmental and economic analysis of a water network system using LCA and LCC. AIChE J. 53 (12), 3253–3262. Lippiatt, B.C., 2000. BEES 2.0: Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability: Technical Manual and User Guide. MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg. Lippiatt, B.C., 2007. BEESRG 4.0: Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability Technical Manual and User Guide. MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg. Lloyd, S.M., Lave, L.B., 2003. Life cycle economic and environmental implications of using nanocomposites in automobiles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37 (15), 3458–3466. Malmqvist, T., Glaumann, M., Scarpellini, S., Zabalza, I., Aranda, A., Llera, E., Díaz, S., 2011. Life cycle assessment in buildings: the ENSLIC simplified method and guidelines. Energy 36 (4), 1900–1907. Mateus, R., Bragança, L., 2011. Sustainability assessment and rating of buildings: developing the methodology SBToolPT–H. Build. Environ. 46 (10), 1962–1971. Monahan, J., Powell, J.C., 2011. A comparison of the energy and carbon implications of new systems of energy provision in new build housing in the UK. Energy Policy 39 (1), 290–298. Nässén, J., Holmberg, J., Wadeskog, A., Nyman, M., 2007. Direct and indirect energy use and carbon emissions in the production phase of buildings: an input–output analysis. Energy 32 (9), 1593–1602. Norman, J., MacLean, H.L., Kennedy, C.A., 2006. Comparing high and low residential density: life-cycle analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 1, 10–21. Norris, G.A., 2001. Integrating life cycle cost analysis and LCA. Int. J. LCA 6 (2), 118–120. Norris, G.A., Yost, P., 2001. A transparent, interactive software environment for communicating life-cycle assessment results: an application to residential windows. J. Ind. Ecol. 4, 15–28. Ortiz, O., Castells, F., Sonnemann, G., 2009. Sustainability in the construction industry: a review of recent developments based on LCA. Construct. Build. Mater. 23 (1), 28–39. Paggio, R., Agre, G., Dichev, C., Umann, G., Rozman, T., Batachia, L., Stocchero, M., 1999. A cost-effective programmable environment for developing environmental decision support systems. Environ. Model Softw. 14 (5), 367–382. Pan, H., 2005. The cost efficiency of Kyoto flexible mechanisms: a top-down study with the GEM-E3 world model. Environ. Model Softw. 20 (11), 1401–1411. Petersen, A.K., Solberg, B., 2002. Greenhouse gas emissions, life-cycle inventory and costefficiency of using laminated wood instead of steel construction: case: beams at Gardermoen Airport. Environ. Sci. Pol. 5 (2), 169–182. Petersen, A.K., Solberg, B., 2005. Environmental and economic impacts of substitution between wood products and alternative materials: a review of micro-level analyses from Norway and Sweden. Forest. Pol. Econ. 7 (3), 249–259. Peuportier, B.L.P., 2001. Life cycle assessment applied to the comparative evaluation of single family houses in the French context. Energ. Buildings 33 (5), 443–450.

Peuportier, B.L.P., Their, S., Guiavarch, A., 2013. Eco-design of buildings using thermal simulation and life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 39, 73–78. Ramesh, T., Prakash, R., Shukla, K.K., 2010. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an overview. Energ. Buildings 42 (10), 1592–1600. Rebitzer, G., Hunkeler, D., 2003. Life cycle costing in LCM: ambitions, opportunities, and limitations. Int. J. LCA 8 (5), 253–256. Salhofer, S., Wassermann, G., Binner, E., 2007. Strategic environmental assessment as an approach to assess waste management systems. Experiences from an Austrian case study. Environ. Model Softw. 22 (5), 610–618. Sartori, I., Hestnes, A.G., 2007. Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: a review article. Energ. Buildings 39 (3), 249–257. Schaltegger, S., Synnestvedt, T., 2002. The link between ‘green’ and economic success: environmental management as the crucial trigger between environmental and economic performance. J. Environ. Manag. 65 (4), 339–346. Scheuer, C., Keoleian, G.A., Reppe, P., 2003. Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications. Energ. Buildings 35 (10), 1049–1064. Shokravi, S., Smith, A.J., Burvill, C.R., 2014. Industrial environmental performance evaluation: a Markov-based model considering data uncertainty. Environ. Model Softw. 60, 1–17. Singh, A., Berghorn, G., Joshi, S., Syal, M., 2011. Review of life-cycle assessment applications in building construction. J. Archit. Eng. 1, 15–23. Steen, B., 1999. A Systematic Approach to Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Development (EPS): Version 2000-General System Characteristics. Chalmers University of Technology, Gotheburg. Steen, B., 2005. Environmental costs and benefits in life cycle costing. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 16 (2), 107–118. The 18th Korean Congress, 2012. The Act on Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gases Emission Allowances, South Korea. The American Institute of Architects (AIA), 2010. A Guide to Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings. The American Institute of Architects, New York. Thormark, C., 2002. A low energy building in a life cycle—its embodied energy, energy need for operation and recycling potential. Build. Environ. 37 (4), 429–435. Thormark, C., 2006. The effect of material choice on the total energy need and recycling potential of a building. Build. Environ. 41 (8), 1019–1026. Van der Lugt, P., Van den Dobbelsteen, A.A.J.F., Janssen, J.J.A., 2006. An environmental, economic and practical assessment of bamboo as a building material for supporting structures. Construct. Build. Mater. 20 (9), 648–656. Venkatarama Reddy, B.V., Jagadish, K.S., 2003. Embodied energy of common and alternative building materials and technologies. Energ. Buildings 35 (2), 129–137. Yohanis, Y.G., Norton, B., 2002. Life-cycle operational and embodied energy for a generic single-storey office building in the UK. Energy 27 (1), 77–92. Yu-rong, G., Yuan, C., Yi-qun, L., 2009. Integrated life-cycle costs analysis and life-cycle assessment model for decision making of construction project. 16th Int. Conf. IEEE, pp. 448–453. Zabalza Bribián, I., Aranda Usón, A., Scarpellini, S., 2009. Life cycle assessment in buildings: state-of-the-art and simplified LCA methodology as a complement for building certification. Build. Environ. 44 (12), 2510–2520. Zhang, Y., McKechnie, J., Cormier, D., Lyng, R., Mabee, W., Ogino, A., MacLean, H.L., 2009. Life cycle emissions and cost of producing electricity from coal, natural gas, and wood pellets in Ontario, Canada. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (1), 538–544.

Chan-Joong Kim is a Ph.D. student at the Department of Architectural Engineering in Yonsei University, Seoul. He is the president of the Parsons Brinkerhoff and interested in the following research areas: Sustainable Construction Management and Construction Project Cost Control.

Jimin Kim is a graduate research assistant and Ph.D. student at the Department of Architectural Engineering in Yonsei University, Seoul. He is working at the SUStainable COnstruction Management (SUSCOM) laboratory and interested in the following research areas: Sustainable Construction Management and Construction Project Environmental Impact Control.

C.-J. Kim et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 9–21

21

Taehoon Hong is an associate professor at the department of architectural engineering in Yonsei University, Seoul. He is the director of the SUSCOM laboratory at Yonsei University. He has diverse experience in construction management, mainly in the following research areas: Life Cycle Cost Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment, Sustainable Construction Development, Multi-Family Housing, and Construction Simulation, Infrastructure Management.

Kwangbok Jeong is a graduate research assistant and Ph.D. student at the Department of Architectural Engineering in Yonsei University, Seoul. He is working at the SUStainable COnstruction Management (SUSCOM) laboratory and interested in the following research areas: Sustainable Construction Management and Construction Project Environmental Impact Control.

Choongwan Koo is a postdoctoral fellow at the Department of Architectural Engineering in Yonsei University, Seoul. He is working at the SUSCOM laboratory and interested in the following research areas: Sustainable Construction Management, Decision Support Systems, and New Renewable Energy.

Hyo Seon Park is a professor at the department of architectural engineering in Yonsei University, Seoul. He is the director of the “center for structural health care technology in buildings” at Yonsei University. His main research areas include high-rise building structure, structural health monitoring, and structural optimization.