Barriers for developing building with low embodied energy multi criteria decision making approach

  • Authors

    • Abdulrahman Haruna
    • Nasir Shafiq
    • O. A. Montasir
    • Sani Haruna
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.21551

  • Abstract

    Design, construction management and procurement play a vital role in Building projects. Subsequent design decision, construction man-agement activities and procurement policies tend to become barriers to sustainable construction by impacting negatively toward the environment. This paper pinpoints the barriers faced in embodied energy minimization by professionals in the Malaysia construction industry. Construction expert opinion was collected through design questionnaire survey which was scale according to saaty’s with (1) equal importance to (9) extreme importance. The returned questionnaires were then inputted into the multi criteria decision making tools. Ana-lytical network process (ANP) was used to determine which barrier among design, construction management and procurement has sig-nificant impact on the sustainability of building project. The barriers with most significant influence in the construction industry regard-ing embodied energy were found to be high level of wastage (CM01), Non-consideration of embodied impacts in assessment of offers (P01) and over specification in design due to additional factors of safety (D02).

  • References

    1. [1] Tang, X., S. Snowden, and M. Höök, Analysis of energy embodied in the international trade of UK. Energy Policy, 2013.57: p. 418-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.02.009.

      [2] Chen, B., et al., China's energy-related mercury emissions: characteristics, effect of trade and mitigation policies. Journal of cleaner production, 2017.141: p. 1259-1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.200.

      [3] Chen, T., J. Burnett, and C. Chau, Analysis of embodied energy use in the residential building of Hong Kong. Energy, 2001. 26(4): p. 323-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(01)00006-8.

      [4] Dixit, M.K., et al., Need for an embodied energy measurement protocol for buildings: A review paper. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 2012. 16(6): p. 3730-3743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.021.

      [5] Langston, Y.L. and C.A. Langston, Reliability of building embodied energy modelling: an analysis of 30 Melbourne case studies. Construction Management and Economics, 2008. 26(2): p. 147-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190701716564.

      [6] Bribián, I.Z., A.A. Usón, and S. Scarpellini, Life cycle assessment in buildings: State-of-the-art and simplified LCA methodology as a complement for building certification. Building and Environment, 2009.44 (12): p. 2510-2520.

      [7] Verbeeck, G. and H. Hens, Life cycle inventory of buildings: A contribution analysis. Building and Environment, 2010. 45(4): p. 964-967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.10.003.

      [8] Assaf, S. and M. Nour, Potential of energy and water efficiency improvement in Abu Dhabi is building sector–Analysis of Estidama pearl rating system. Renewable Energy, 2015.82: p. 100-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.08.018.

      [9] Köne, A.Ç. and T. Büke, An Analytical Network Process (ANP) evaluation of alternative fuels for electricity generation in Turkey. Energy policy, 2007.35(10): p. 5220-5228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.014.

      [10] Fellows, R.F. and A.M. Liu, Research methods for construction. 2015: John Wiley & Sons.

      [11] SAATY, T. and L.G. Vargas, Decision Making with Analytic Network Process, Pittsburgh.2006, Springer.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Haruna, A., Shafiq, N., Montasir, O. A., & Haruna, S. (2018). Barriers for developing building with low embodied energy multi criteria decision making approach. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(4), 3126-3130. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.21551

    Received date: 2018-11-25

    Accepted date: 2018-11-25