Abstract
Three methods (eco-efficiency, environmental priority strategy (EPS) system, and certified emission reduction (CER) price) have been proposed to support the decision-making processes that simultaneously consider cost and CO2 emission in acquiring an economical and environment-friendly design. However, which method is most reasonable is still being debated. This study was conducted to determine the differences in the results among three methods that simultaneously consider cost and CO2 emission. Towards this end, the case study was conducted as follows: (i) calculating the costs and CO2 emissions of nine building structural design alternatives; (ii) identifying the design alternative priority by applying the costs and CO 2 emissions of the nine alternatives to the three decision-making methods; and (iii) comparing and analyzing the causes of differences among the results. Results of this study showed that the three methods differed in the influence ratio of CO2 emission on the decision-making results. The influence ratio of CO2 emission in the eco-efficiency-based method was 29.1 ∼ 78.4% while those in the EPS system and CER-price-based method were 18.8 ∼ 23.5% and 1.8 ∼ 2.3%, respectively. Due to such differences, the design alternative priorities proposed by the three methods varied.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 186-194 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Energy and Buildings |
| Volume | 72 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2014 Apr 1 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Civil and Structural Engineering
- Building and Construction
- Mechanical Engineering
- Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Cite this
}
Comparative analysis of decision-making methods for integrating cost and CO2 emission - Focus on building structural design - Focus o. / Ji, Changyoon; Hong, Taehoon; Park, Hyo Seon.
In: Energy and Buildings, Vol. 72, 01.04.2014, p. 186-194.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative analysis of decision-making methods for integrating cost and CO2 emission - Focus on building structural design - Focus o
AU - Ji, Changyoon
AU - Hong, Taehoon
AU - Park, Hyo Seon
PY - 2014/4/1
Y1 - 2014/4/1
N2 - Three methods (eco-efficiency, environmental priority strategy (EPS) system, and certified emission reduction (CER) price) have been proposed to support the decision-making processes that simultaneously consider cost and CO2 emission in acquiring an economical and environment-friendly design. However, which method is most reasonable is still being debated. This study was conducted to determine the differences in the results among three methods that simultaneously consider cost and CO2 emission. Towards this end, the case study was conducted as follows: (i) calculating the costs and CO2 emissions of nine building structural design alternatives; (ii) identifying the design alternative priority by applying the costs and CO 2 emissions of the nine alternatives to the three decision-making methods; and (iii) comparing and analyzing the causes of differences among the results. Results of this study showed that the three methods differed in the influence ratio of CO2 emission on the decision-making results. The influence ratio of CO2 emission in the eco-efficiency-based method was 29.1 ∼ 78.4% while those in the EPS system and CER-price-based method were 18.8 ∼ 23.5% and 1.8 ∼ 2.3%, respectively. Due to such differences, the design alternative priorities proposed by the three methods varied.
AB - Three methods (eco-efficiency, environmental priority strategy (EPS) system, and certified emission reduction (CER) price) have been proposed to support the decision-making processes that simultaneously consider cost and CO2 emission in acquiring an economical and environment-friendly design. However, which method is most reasonable is still being debated. This study was conducted to determine the differences in the results among three methods that simultaneously consider cost and CO2 emission. Towards this end, the case study was conducted as follows: (i) calculating the costs and CO2 emissions of nine building structural design alternatives; (ii) identifying the design alternative priority by applying the costs and CO 2 emissions of the nine alternatives to the three decision-making methods; and (iii) comparing and analyzing the causes of differences among the results. Results of this study showed that the three methods differed in the influence ratio of CO2 emission on the decision-making results. The influence ratio of CO2 emission in the eco-efficiency-based method was 29.1 ∼ 78.4% while those in the EPS system and CER-price-based method were 18.8 ∼ 23.5% and 1.8 ∼ 2.3%, respectively. Due to such differences, the design alternative priorities proposed by the three methods varied.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84893082213&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84893082213&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.12.045
DO - 10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.12.045
M3 - Article
VL - 72
SP - 186
EP - 194
JO - Energy and Buildings
JF - Energy and Buildings
SN - 0378-7788
ER -