Comparative analysis of decision-making methods for integrating cost and CO2 emission - Focus on building structural design - Focus o

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

43 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)186-194
Number of pages9
JournalEnergy and Buildings
Volume72
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014 Apr 1

Fingerprint

Structural design
Decision making
Costs

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Civil and Structural Engineering
  • Building and Construction
  • Mechanical Engineering
  • Electrical and Electronic Engineering

Cite this

@article{a690679324e14c94b2438b1636d1a266,
title = "Comparative analysis of decision-making methods for integrating cost and CO2 emission - Focus on building structural design - Focus o",
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.",
author = "Changyoon Ji and Taehoon Hong and Park, {Hyo Seon}",
year = "2014",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.12.045",
language = "English",
volume = "72",
pages = "186--194",
journal = "Energy and Buildings",
issn = "0378-7788",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

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 -