Contractors Perspective on the Selection of Innovative Sustainable Technologies for Achieving Zero Carbon Retail Buildings

The use of innovative sustainable technologies (IST) has been regarded as an effective approach to enhancing energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions of buildings. However, contractors face significant challenges in the selection of IST. The reported challenges in the literature include: lack of skills and knowledge, uncertainties, risks and the rapid development of a large number of technological alternatives and decision criteria. The selection process emerges as a multi-attribute, value-based task that includes both qualitative and quantitative factors, which are often assessed with imprecise data and human judgments. This paper aims to establish the decision criteria for the selection of IST for achieving low carbon existing retail buildings with a focus on the main contractor’s perspective. The arguments are informed by the combination of literature review and an in-depth case study with a UK leading contractor. Five broad decision criteria are identified systematically drawing on the contractor’s practice. The established criteria are weighted and ranked using the analytic hierarchy process and expert opinions; with ‘margin opportunity’ being the most important, followed by ‘repeat business’, ‘investment costs’, ‘differentiation’ and then ‘transferability’. The findings should facilitate the integration of various facets of the selection process and stimulate contractors to use IST

The geographic component of production technology

In today’s global economy manufacturing companies are continuously re-evaluating their\ud location. In many instances companies decide to relocate some or all of their\ud manufacturing activities to so called low labor cost countries. However, the perception that\ud this is cost effective is not always correct. In many instances the costs of producing in low\ud labor cost countries are highly under estimated. In some instances the costs of the\ud production alone, i.e. excluding logistics cost, are already higher than producing in so\ud called high labor cost countries. Previous research suggests that some of the reasons for\ud these higher costs are related to the particular geographic environment. This study is\ud focused on increasing our understanding of the relationship between geographically\ud determined factors and production technology. Understanding the relationship between\ud geographical factors and production factors allows insight into production location and\ud companies may learn to avoid wrongly moving production away from the developed, high\ud labor cost, countries. For governments; knowledge on geographically determined factors\ud places governments in a better position to selectively nurture specific industries based on\ud their geography-production technology relationshi

Public initiatives of settlement transformation. A theoretical-methodological approach to selecting tools of multi-criteria decision analysis

In Europe, the operating context in which initiatives of settlement transformation are currently initiated is characterized by a complex, elaborate combination of technical, regulatory and governance-related factors. A similar set of considerations makes it necessary to address the complex decision-making problems to be resolved through multidisciplinary, comparative approaches designed to rationalize the process and treat the elements to be considered in systematic fashion with respect to the range of alternatives available as solutions. Within a context defined in this manner, decision-making processes must often be used to obtain multidisciplinary and multidimensional analyses to support the choices made by the decision-makers. Such analyses are carried out using multi-criteria tools designed to arrive at syntheses of the numerous forms of input data needed to describe decision-making problems of similar complexity, so that one or more outcomes of the synthesis make possible informed, well thought-out, strategic decisions. The technical literature on the topic proposes numerous tools of multi-criteria analysis for application in different decision-making contexts. Still, no specific contributions have been drawn up to date on the approach to take in selecting the tool best suited to providing adequate responses to the queries of evaluation that arise most frequently in the various fields of application, and especially in the settlement sector. The objective of this paper is to propose, by formulating a taxonomy of the endogenous and exogenous variables of tools of multi-criteria analysis, a methodology capable of selecting the tool best suited to the queries of evaluation which arise regarding the chief categories of decision-making problems, and particularly in the settlement sector

Impact of College Rankings on Institutional Decision Making: Four Country Case Studies

Examines how global or national rankings influence colleges' strategic positioning and planning, staffing and organization, quality assurance, resource allocation and fundraising, and admissions and financial aid in Australia, Canada, Germany, and Japan

College and University Ranking Systems: Global Perspectives and American Challenges

Examines how higher education ranking systems function, how other countries use ranking systems, and the impact of college rankings in the United States on student access, choice, and opportunity

GIS-based multicriteria analysis as decision support in flood risk management

In this report we develop a GIS-based multicriteria flood risk assessment and mapping approach. This approach has the ability a) to consider also flood risks which are not measured in monetary terms, b) to show the spatial distribution of these multiple risks and c) to deal with uncertainties in criteria values and to show their influence on the overall assessment. It can furthermore be used to show the spatial distribution of the effects of risk reduction measures. The approach is tested for a pilot study at the River Mulde in Saxony, Germany. Therefore, a GISdataset of economic as well as social and environmental risk criteria is built up. Two multicriteria decision rules, a disjunctive approach and an additive weighting approach are used to come to an overall assessment and mapping of flood risk in the area. Both the risk calculation and mapping of single criteria as well as the multicriteria analysis are supported by a software tool (FloodCalc) which was developed for this task. --

A Review of Multicriteria Assessment Techniques Applied to Sustainable Infrastructure Design

[EN] Given the great impacts associated with the construction and maintenance of infrastructures in both the environmental, the economic and the social dimensions, a sustainable approach to their design appears essential to ease the fulfilment of the Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations. Multicriteria decision-making methods are usually applied to address the complex and often conflicting criteria that characterise sustainability. The present study aims to review the current state of the art regarding the application of such techniques in the sustainability assessment of infrastructures, analysing as well the sustainability impacts and criteria included in the assessments. The Analytic Hierarchy Process is the most frequently used weighting technique. Simple Additive Weighting has turned out to be the most applied decision-making method to assess the weighted criteria. Although a life cycle assessment approach is recurrently used to evaluate sustainability, standardised concepts, such as cost discounting, or presentation of the assumed functional unit or system boundaries, as required by ISO 14040, are still only marginally used. Additionally, a need for further research in the inclusion of fuzziness in the handling of linguistic variables is identified.The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, along with FEDER funding (Project no. BIA2017-85098-R).Navarro, IJ.; Yepes, V.; Martí, JV. (2019). A Review of Multicriteria Assessment Techniques Applied to Sustainable Infrastructure Design. Advances in Civil Engineering. 2019(6134803):1-16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6134803S11620196134803Kyriacou, A. P., Muinelo-Gallo, L., & Roca-Sagalés, O. (2019). The efficiency of transport infrastructure investment and the role of government quality: An empirical analysis. Transport Policy, 74, 93-102. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.11.017García-Segura, T., Yepes, V., Martí, J. V., & Alcalá, J. (2014). Optimization of concrete I-beams using a new hybrid glowworm swarm algorithm. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, 11(7), 1190-1205. doi:10.1590/s1679-78252014000700007Yepes, V., Martí, J. V., García-Segura, T., & González-Vidosa, F. (2017). Heuristics in optimal detailed design of precast road bridges. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 17(4), 738-749. doi:10.1016/j.acme.2017.02.006Frangopol, D. M. (2011). Life-cycle performance, management, and optimisation of structural systems under uncertainty: accomplishments and challenges1. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 7(6), 389-413. doi:10.1080/15732471003594427Safi, M., Sundquist, H., & Karoumi, R. (2015). Cost-Efficient Procurement of Bridge Infrastructures by Incorporating Life-Cycle Cost Analysis with Bridge Management Systems. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 20(6), 04014083. doi:10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000673Navarro, I. J., Yepes, V., Martí, J. V., & González-Vidosa, F. (2018). Life cycle impact assessment of corrosion preventive designs applied to prestressed concrete bridge decks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 698-713. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.110Zhang, Y.-R., Wu, W.-J., & Wang, Y.-F. (2016). Bridge life cycle assessment with data uncertainty. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(4), 569-576. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1035-7García-Segura, T., Penadés-Plà, V., & Yepes, V. (2018). Sustainable bridge design by metamodel-assisted multi-objective optimization and decision-making under uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production, 202, 904-915. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.177Van den Heede, P., & De Belie, N. (2014). A service life based global warming potential for high-volume fly ash concrete exposed to carbonation. Construction and Building Materials, 55, 183-193. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.01.033Braga, A. M., Silvestre, J. D., & de Brito, J. (2017). Compared environmental and economic impact from cradle to gate of concrete with natural and recycled coarse aggregates. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 529-543. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.057Hossain, M. U., Poon, C. S., Dong, Y. H., Lo, I. M. C., & Cheng, J. C. P. (2017). Development of social sustainability assessment method and a comparative case study on assessing recycled construction materials. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(8), 1654-1674. doi:10.1007/s11367-017-1373-0Dong, Y. H., & Ng, S. T. (2015). A social life cycle assessment model for building construction in Hong Kong. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(8), 1166-1180. doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0908-5Sierra, L. A., Yepes, V., García-Segura, T., & Pellicer, E. (2018). Bayesian network method for decision-making about the social sustainability of infrastructure projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 521-534. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.140Montalbán-Domingo, L., García-Segura, T., Sanz, M. A., & Pellicer, E. (2018). Social sustainability criteria in public-work procurement: An international perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 1355-1371. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.083Zamarrón-Mieza, I., Yepes, V., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2017). A systematic review of application of multi-criteria decision analysis for aging-dam management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 217-230. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.092Sierra, L. A., Yepes, V., & Pellicer, E. (2018). A review of multi-criteria assessment of the social sustainability of infrastructures. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 496-513. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.022Reza, B., Sadiq, R., & Hewage, K. (2011). Sustainability assessment of flooring systems in the city of Tehran: An AHP-based life cycle analysis. Construction and Building Materials, 25(4), 2053-2066. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.041Pons, O., & de la Fuente, A. (2013). Integrated sustainability assessment method applied to structural concrete columns. Construction and Building Materials, 49, 882-893. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.009Mosalam, K. M., Alibrandi, U., Lee, H., & Armengou, J. (2018). Performance-based engineering and multi-criteria decision analysis for sustainable and resilient building design. Structural Safety, 74, 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2018.03.005Perini, K., & Rosasco, P. (2013). Cost–benefit analysis for green façades and living wall systems. Building and Environment, 70, 110-121. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.08.012Gilani, G., Blanco, A., & Fuente, A. de la. (2017). A New Sustainability Assessment Approach Based on Stakeholder’s Satisfaction for Building Façades. Energy Procedia, 115, 50-58. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.05.006Moussavi Nadoushani, Z. S., Akbarnezhad, A., Ferre Jornet, J., & Xiao, J. (2017). Multi-criteria selection of façade systems based on sustainability criteria. Building and Environment, 121, 67-78. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.05.016Guzmán-Sánchez, S., Jato-Espino, D., Lombillo, I., & Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M. (2018). Assessment of the contributions of different flat roof types to achieving sustainable development. Building and Environment, 141, 182-192. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.05.063Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Pourhossein, M., Yazdani, M., & Kazimieras Zavadskas, E. (2018). Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 57(1), 357-365. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2016.11.002Invidiata, A., Lavagna, M., & Ghisi, E. (2018). Selecting design strategies using multi-criteria decision making to improve the sustainability of buildings. Building and Environment, 139, 58-68. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.041Kamali, M., Hewage, K., & Milani, A. S. (2018). Life cycle sustainability performance assessment framework for residential modular buildings: Aggregated sustainability indices. Building and Environment, 138, 21-41. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.019Pons, O., & Aguado, A. (2012). Integrated value model for sustainable assessment applied to technologies used to build schools in Catalonia, Spain. Building and Environment, 53, 49-58. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.01.007Akadiri, P. O., Olomolaiye, P. O., & Chinyio, E. A. (2013). Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of sustainable materials for building projects. Automation in Construction, 30, 113-125. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2012.10.004Motuzienė, V., Rogoža, A., Lapinskienė, V., & Vilutienė, T. (2016). Construction solutions for energy efficient single-family house based on its life cycle multi-criteria analysis: a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 532-541. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.103Samani, P., Mendes, A., Leal, V., Miranda Guedes, J., & Correia, N. (2015). A sustainability assessment of advanced materials for novel housing solutions. Building and Environment, 92, 182-191. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.04.012AL-Nassar, F., Ruparathna, R., Chhipi-Shrestha, G., Haider, H., Hewage, K., & Sadiq, R. (2016). Sustainability assessment framework for low rise commercial buildings: life cycle impact index-based approach. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 18(8), 2579-2590. doi:10.1007/s10098-016-1168-1ALwaer, H., & Clements-Croome, D. J. (2010). Key performance indicators (KPIs) and priority setting in using the multi-attribute approach for assessing sustainable intelligent buildings. Building and Environment, 45(4), 799-807. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.019Yu, J. Q., Dang, B., Clements-Croome, D., & Xu, S. (2011). Sustainability Assessment Indicators and Methodology for Intelligent Buildings. Advanced Materials Research, 368-373, 3829-3832. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.368-373.3829Drejeris, R., & Kavolynas, A. (2014). Multi-criteria Evaluation of Building Sustainability Behavior. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, 502-511. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.894IGNATIUS, J., RAHMAN, A., YAZDANI, M., ŠAPARAUSKAS, J., & HARON, S. H. (2016). AN INTEGRATED FUZZY ANP–QFD APPROACH FOR GREEN BUILDING ASSESSMENT. JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 22(4), 551-563. doi:10.3846/13923730.2015.1120772Amoozad Mahdiraji, H., Arzaghi, S., Stauskis, G., & Zavadskas, E. (2018). A Hybrid Fuzzy BWM-COPRAS Method for Analyzing Key Factors of Sustainable Architecture. Sustainability, 10(5), 1626. doi:10.3390/su10051626San-José Lombera, J.-T., & Garrucho Aprea, I. (2010). A system approach to the environmental analysis of industrial buildings. Building and Environment, 45(3), 673-683. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.012Cuadrado, J., Zubizarreta, M., Rojí, E., García, H., & Larrauri, M. (2015). Sustainability-Related Decision Making in Industrial Buildings: An AHP Analysis. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015, 1-13. doi:10.1155/2015/157129Cuadrado, J., Zubizarreta, M., Rojí, E., Larrauri, M., & Álvarez, I. (2016). Sustainability assessment methodology for industrial buildings: three case studies. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 33(2), 106-124. doi:10.1080/10286608.2016.1148143Heravi, G., Fathi, M., & Faeghi, S. (2017). Multi-criteria group decision-making method for optimal selection of sustainable industrial building options focused on petrochemical projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2999-3013. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.168Formisano, A., & Mazzolani, F. M. (2015). On the selection by MCDM methods of the optimal system for seismic retrofitting and vertical addition of existing buildings. Computers & Structures, 159, 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2015.06.016Terracciano, G., Di Lorenzo, G., Formisano, A., & Landolfo, R. (2014). Cold-formed thin-walled steel structures as vertical addition and energetic retrofitting systems of existing masonry buildings. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 19(7), 850-866. doi:10.1080/19648189.2014.974832Zavadskas, E. K., & Antucheviciene, J. (2007). Multiple criteria evaluation of rural building’s regeneration alternatives. Building and Environment, 42(1), 436-451. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.08.001Hosseini, S. M. A., de la Fuente, A., & Pons, O. (2016). Multicriteria Decision-Making Method for Sustainable Site Location of Post-Disaster Temporary Housing in Urban Areas. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(9), 04016036. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001137Malekly, H., Meysam Mousavi, S., & Hashemi, H. (2010). A fuzzy integrated methodology for evaluating conceptual bridge design. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(7), 4910-4920. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.12.024Gervásio, H., & Simões da Silva, L. (2012). A probabilistic decision-making approach for the sustainable assessment of infrastructures. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(8), 7121-7131. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.032Balali, V., Mottaghi, A., Shoghli, O., & Golabchi, M. (2014). Selection of Appropriate Material, Construction Technique, and Structural System of Bridges by Use of Multicriteria Decision-Making Method. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2431(1), 79-87. doi:10.3141/2431-11Jakiel, P., & Fabianowski, D. (2015). FAHP model used for assessment of highway RC bridge structural and technological arrangements. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(8), 4054-4061. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.12.039Yepes, V., García-Segura, T., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2015). A cognitive approach for the multi-objective optimization of RC structural problems. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 15(4), 1024-1036. doi:10.1016/j.acme.2015.05.001Kripka, M., Yepes, V., & Milani, C. (2019). Selection of Sustainable Short-Span Bridge Design in Brazil. Sustainability, 11(5), 1307. doi:10.3390/su11051307Wang, Y.-M., Liu, J., & Elhag, T. M. S. (2008). An integrated AHP–DEA methodology for bridge risk assessment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 54(3), 513-525. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2007.09.002Abu Dabous, S., & Alkass, S. (2008). Decision support method for multi‐criteria selection of bridge rehabilitation strategy. Construction Management and Economics, 26(8), 883-893. doi:10.1080/01446190802071190Chen, T.-Y. (2014). The extended linear assignment method for multiple criteria decision analysis based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38(7-8), 2101-2117. doi:10.1016/j.apm.2013.10.017Begić, F., & Afgan, N. H. (2007). Sustainability assessment tool for the decision making in selection of energy system—Bosnian case. Energy, 32(10), 1979-1985. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2007.02.006Cartelle Barros, J. J., Lara Coira, M., de la Cruz López, M. P., & del Caño Gochi, A. (2015). Assessing the global sustainability of different electricity generation systems. Energy, 89, 473-489. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.110Klein, S. J. W., & Whalley, S. (2015). Comparing the sustainability of U.S. electricity options through multi-criteria decision analysis. Energy Policy, 79, 127-149. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.007Montajabiha, M. (2015). An Extended PROMETHE II Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Technique Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Logic for Sustainable Energy Planning. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25(2), 221-244. doi:10.1007/s10726-015-9440-zFetanat, A., & Khorasaninejad, E. (2015). A novel hybrid MCDM approach for offshore wind farm site selection: A case study of Iran. Ocean & Coastal Management, 109, 17-28. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.02.005Medina-González, S., Espuña, A., & Puigjaner, L. (2018). An efficient uncertainty representation for the design of sustainable energy generation systems. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 131, 144-159. doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2017.11.044Gumus, S., Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2016). Intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria decision making framework based on life cycle environmental, economic and social impacts: The case of U.S. wind energy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 8, 78-92. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2016.06.006FUENTE, A. de la, ARMENGOU, J., PONS, O., & AGUADO, A. (2016). Multi-criteria decision-making model for assessing the sustainability index of wind-turbine support systems: application to a new precast concrete alternative. JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 23(2), 194-203. doi:10.3846/13923730.2015.1023347Afshar, A., Mariño, M. A., Saadatpour, M., & Afshar, A. (2010). Fuzzy TOPSIS Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Applied to Karun Reservoirs System. Water Resources Management, 25(2), 545-563. doi:10.1007/s11269-010-9713-xSun, X., Ning, P., Tang, X., Yi, H., Li, K., Zhou, L., & Xu, X. (2013). Environmental Risk Assessment System for Phosphogypsum Tailing Dams. The Scientific World Journal, 2013, 1-13. doi:10.1155/2013/680798Martin, C., Ruperd, Y., & Legret, M. (2007). Urban stormwater drainage management: The development of a multicriteria decision aid approach for best management practices. European Journal of Operational Research, 181(1), 338-349. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.06.019Dong, X., Zeng, S., Chen, J., & Zhao, D. (2008). An integrated assessment method of urban drainage system: A case study in Shenzhen City, China. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China, 2(2), 150-156. doi:10.1007/s11783-008-0014-zTahmasebi Birgani, Y., & Yazdandoost, F. (2018). An Integrated Framework to Evaluate Resilient-Sustainable Urban Drainage Management Plans Using a Combined-adaptive MCDM Technique. Water Resources Management, 32(8), 2817-2835. doi:10.1007/s11269-018-1960-2De la Fuente, A., Pons, O., Josa, A., & Aguado, A. (2016). Multi-Criteria Decision Making in the sustainability assessment of sewerage pipe systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 4762-4770. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.002Onu, U. P., Xie, Q., & Xu, L. (2017). A Fuzzy TOPSIS model Framework for Ranking Sustainable Water Supply Alternatives. Water Resources Management, 31(9), 2579-2593. doi:10.1007/s11269-017-1636-3Chhipi-Shrestha, G., Hewage, K., & Sadiq, R. (2017). Selecting Sustainability Indicators for Small to Medium Sized Urban Water Systems Using Fuzzy-ELECTRE. Water Environment Research, 89(3), 238-249. doi:10.2175/106143016x14798353399494Kucukvar, M., Gumus, S., Egilmez, G., & Tatari, O. (2014). Ranking the sustainability performance of pavements: An intuitionistic fuzzy decision making method. Automation in Construction, 40, 33-43. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2013.12.009Jato-Espino, D., Rodriguez-Hernandez, J., Andrés-Valeri, V. C., & Ballester-Muñoz, F. (2014). A fuzzy stochastic multi-criteria model for the selection of urban pervious pavements. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(15), 6807-6817. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.05.008Torres-Machí, C., Chamorro, A., Pellicer, E., Yepes, V., & Videla, C. (2015). Sustainable Pavement Management. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2523(1), 56-63. doi:10.3141/2523-07Santos, J., Bressi, S., Cerezo, V., & Lo Presti, D. (2019). SUP&R DSS: A sustainability-based decision support system for road pavements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 206, 524-540. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.308Oses, U., Rojí, E., Cuadrado, J., & Larrauri, M. (2018). Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Tool for Local Governments to Evaluate the Global and Local Sustainability of Transportation Systems in Urban Areas: Case Study. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 144(1), 04017019. doi:10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000406Asgari, N., Hassani, A., Jones, D., & Nguye, H. H. (2015). Sustainability ranking of the UK major ports: Methodology and case study. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 78, 19-39. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2015.01.014Banias, G., Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., & Tarsenis, S. (2010). Assessing multiple criteria for the optimal location of a construction and demolition waste management facility. Building and Environment, 45(10), 2317-2326. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.04.016Rochikashvili, M., & Bongaerts, J. C. (2016). Multi-criteria Decision-making for Sustainable Wall Paints and Coatings Using Analytic Hierarchy Process. Energy Procedia, 96, 923-933. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.167Ugwu, O. O., & Haupt, T. C. (2007). Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure sustainability—a South African construction industry perspective. Building and Environment, 42(2), 665-680. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.10.018Reyes, J. P., San-José, J. T., Cuadrado, J., & Sancibrian, R. (2014). Health & Safety criteria for determining the sustainable value of construction projects. Safety Science, 62, 221-232. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2013.08.023Dobrovolskienė, N., & Tamošiūnienė, R. (2015). An Index to Measure Sustainability of a Business Project in the Construction Industry: Lithuanian Case. Sustainability, 8(1), 14. doi:10.3390/su8010014Marzouk, M., & Azab, S. (2014). Environmental and economic impact assessment of construction and demolition waste disposal using system dynamics. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 82, 41-49. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.015Navarro, I. J., Yepes, V., & Martí, J. V. (2018). Social life cycle assessment of concrete bridge decks exposed to aggressive environments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 72, 50-63. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.05.003Brans, J. P., & Vincke, P. (1985). Note—A Preference Ranking Organisation Method. Management Science, 31(6), 647-656. doi:10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647Kabir, G., Sadiq, R., & Tesfamariam, S. (2013). A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 10(9), 1176-1210. doi:10.1080/15732479.2013.795978Podvezko, V. (2011). The Comparative Analysis of MCDA Methods SAW and COPRAS. Engineering Economics, 22(2). doi:10.5755/j01.ee.22.2.310Kaya, İ., Çolak, M., & Terzi, F. (2018). Use of MCDM techniques for energy policy and decision-making problems: A review. International Journal of Energy Research, 42(7), 2344-2372. doi:10.1002/er.4016Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., MD Nor, K., Khalifah, Z., Zakwan, N., & Valipo