Applying three pillar indicator assessments on alternative floor systems: life cycle study

• Main Authors: Balasbaneh, Ali Tighnavard, Yeoh, David, Juki, Mohd. Irwan, Gohari, Adel, Zainal Abidin, Ahmad Razin, Marsono, Abdul Kadir
• Format: Article
• Published: Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH 2021
• Subjects: TA Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)
• Online Access: http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/95806/; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01881-6
• Institution: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

Purpose: A comprehensive sustainable research requires investigation on all the relevant environmental, financial and social impacts. The objective of this research is to evaluate the sustainability performance of different flooring systems using a multi-criteria method. Included flooring systems are ceramic tile, laminate, concrete and wood, and criteria consist of carbon dioxide emission, ozone layer depletion, cost and social impacts. Methods: The method of this study entails four stages. In the first stage, the life cycle assessment (LCA) is conducted to rank the flooring systems based on carbon dioxide emission (CO2) and ozone layer depletion (OLD). The second stage entails the life cycle cost assessment (LCCA) which focuses on alternatives based on their related cost. The LCA and LCCA cover the four phases of production and construction, transportation, maintenance and end of life. In the third stage, the social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is performed involving four main social indicators namely workers, local community, society and consumers. The final stage entails the implementation of the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach to evaluate the different options resulting from the LCA, LCCA and SLCA to propose the most sustainable flooring system by taking into consideration the combination of all the stated criteria. Results and discussion: The result of the LCA indicates that wood flooring is the least environmental impact per functional unit as it causes fewer carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (17%) than the second least environmental impact per functional unit (laminated flooring). However, the result of the LCCA suggests that concrete flooring is the lowest costing system, i.e. 30% less than the second best option (wood flooring). On the other hand, the SLCA result indicates that laminated flooring is the least negative social impact with a 28% better score than concrete flooring. The results of the MCDM show that wood is the most sustainable floor system with a utility degree of 100%, higher than laminated flooring at 78%. However, in equal weighting scenario, laminated flooring is shown to be the best choice. Conclusions: The presented approach in this research has been successfully applied on a case study. It provides valuable insight on the assessment of flooring systems so as to assist decision-makers and architects in prioritising and selecting the most sustainable flooring systems to be used in residential buildings in Malaysia. This methodology can be applied in other countries with a similar climate and cultural preferences.