Multidimensional Pareto optimization as an approach for site-specific building refurbishment solutions applicable for life cycle sustainability assessment

PurposeThis paper addresses the application and potential of LCSA in the built environment with a focus on refurbishments of residential buildings. It specifically addresses the phenomenon of interchange of building technologies efficiencies under different life time assessments from economy, ecology and social fields. An approach of optimization rather than hard target numbers is proposed as win–win–win situations are unlikely.MethodsA multidimensional Pareto optimization methodology, using LCC, LCA combined with first stages of a social assessment in a feasibility study but potentially later full SLCA, is proposed, which site-specifically visualizes the interchange between different options in building design or modification, and evaluates optimal overall concepts. LCA and LCC are used to analyze a case study from an EU project named BEEM-UP in which solutions for large-scale uptake of refurbishment strategies are developed. Social frame conditions are taken into account by identifying the driving technologies and feeding the consequences of their implementation for the residents into the tenant involvement part of the project.Results and discussionThe calculations prove that the general assumptions leading to the methodology hold true at least for this case study. A clear Pareto-optimal curve is visible when assessing LCC and LCA. The example buildings results show certain systems to be dominating clusters on the figures while others clearly can be identified as not relevant. Several of the driving technologies however fail to be applicable because of social frame conditions, e.g., clear requests by the tenants. Based on the conclusions, the potential for including SLCA as a third dimension in the methodology and possible visualization options are discussed.ConclusionsThe development in the field of social indicators in the building sector has to be strengthened in order to come up with a holistic picture and respectively with appropriate responses to current challenges. While some solutions identified in the LCC/LCA assessment also have good social characteristics, several others have not and solutions identified as lacking might have social advantages that are currently left out of consideration The upcoming Standards EN 15643-5 and ISO 15686-x are a promising step in this direction as is the work to create a conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA by the scientific community.

[1]  Naglis Malys,et al.  High-quality housing—A key issue in delivering sustainable communities , 2009 .

[2]  Alessandra Zamagni,et al.  Strengths or bias in social LCA? , 2011 .

[3]  Holger Wallbaum,et al.  Harnessing stakeholder motivation: towards a Swiss sustainable building sector , 2011 .

[4]  Paula Femenias,et al.  Sweden: Integrated Strategies to Overcome Market Barriers , 2012 .

[5]  Heidi Dumreicher,et al.  Place as a social space: fields of encounter relating to the local sustainability process. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

[6]  Andreas Kicherer,et al.  Eco-efficiency analysis by basf: the method , 2002 .

[7]  Milan Brumovsky,et al.  Attenuation of Radiation Damage and Neutron Field in Reactor Pressure Vessel Wall , 2006 .

[8]  Maite Cabeza Gutés.  The concept of weak sustainability , 1996 .

[9]  Rafaela Hillerbrand,et al.  A conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA , 2011 .

[10]  Sw Dean,et al.  Comparison of the Life Cycle Assessments of an Insulating Concrete Form House and a Wood Frame House , 2006 .

[11]  P. Wargocki,et al.  Questionnaire survey on factors influencing comfort with indoor environmental quality in Danish housing , 2012 .

[12]  Walter Kloepffer,et al.  Life cycle sustainability assessment of products , 2008 .

[13]  Karen Allacker,et al.  Environmental and economic optimisation of the floor on grade in residential buildings , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[14]  F. M. Meijer,et al.  Comparing European residential building stocks: performance, renovation and policy opportunities , 2009 .

[15]  M. Hauschild,et al.  A Framework for Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment (10 pp) , 2006 .

[16]  Moghaddam Rad Farham,et al.  Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design , 2014 .

[17]  Gian Andrea Blengini,et al.  Energy-saving policies and low-energy residential buildings: an LCA case study to support decision makers in Piedmont (Italy) , 2010 .

[18]  David Root,et al.  Advancing key outcomes of sustainability building assessment , 2006 .

[19]  Lars A. Engberg.  Energy Efficiency in Housing Management , 2012 .

[20]  Peter Wild,et al.  Inadequate documentation in published life cycle energy reports on buildings , 2010 .

[21]  Jun Bi,et al.  Life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emission of an office building in China , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[22]  Melissa M. Bilec,et al.  Service life prediction of residential interior finishes for life cycle assessment , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.