Life cycle assessment of social housing construction: A multicriteria approach
[EN] Social housing construction is crucial in providing cost-effective and sustainable solutions, especially in developing contexts. This study applies Life Cycle Analysis to assess the environmental, economic, and technical impacts of five construction methods: (1) reinforced concrete frames with...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2025 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV) |
| Repositorio: | RiuNet. Repositorio Institucional de la Universitat Politécnica de Valéncia |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:riunet.upv.es:10251/230610 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/230610 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Construction Life cycle assessment Multicriteria decision-making Social Housing 09.- Desarrollar infraestructuras resilientes, promover la industrialización inclusiva y sostenible, y fomentar la innovación |
| Sumario: | [EN] Social housing construction is crucial in providing cost-effective and sustainable solutions, especially in developing contexts. This study applies Life Cycle Analysis to assess the environmental, economic, and technical impacts of five construction methods: (1) reinforced concrete frames with brick masonry, (2) cast-in-place concrete walls with metal formwork, (3) Light Steel Frame systems with gypsum panels, (4) sandwich panels, and (5) precast concrete walls. Using a comprehensive cradle-to-grave approach, the study evaluates the economic, environmental, and technical performance of each alternative. Five multicriteria decision-making methods were applied, structuring a hierarchy of 12 key indicators that integrate cost, sustainability, and construction efficiency. The Light Steel Frame system emerged as the most favorable due to its balance between low cost, reduced environmental impact, and fast execution time. The cast-in-place concrete wall alternative ranked second, followed closely by the sandwich panel option. Despite their advantages in execution time, precast concrete walls ranked the lowest due to higher costs and environmental burdens. These findings contribute to developing sustainable social housing strategies by offering a holistic evaluation framework that integrates multiple perspectives. |
|---|