Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 1135–1143

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /autcon

Environmental assessment in construction using a Spatial Decision Support System

M.C. Ruiz ⁎, I. FernándezDpt. of Transport and Technology of Projects and Processes, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales y de Telecomunicación, Universidad de Cantabria,Av. Los Castros s/n 39005 Santander, Cantabria, Spain

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 942 201 789; fax:E-mail address: ruizpm@unican.es (M.C. Ruiz).

0926-5805/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. Aldoi:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.07.005

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Accepted 30 July 2009

Keywords:Environmental assessmentBuildingSpatial system

This research proposes a Spatial Decision Support System based on the Geographical Information System(GIS) to evaluate the environmental performance in construction. The system has been designed to add aspatial component to the current tools for the inspection and management of the sustainability of buildingsand to assist the planners in their decision-making. The multi-criteria evaluation method developed in theGreen Building Challenge and implemented in the software SbTool has been used as a reference. Theevaluation method presents a hierarchical structure of criteria and variables which is applied to buildingsspatially indexed in GIS and the environmental data of the buildings comes from an external data-basedeveloped in Access. In order to validate the system, the environmental assessment of a group of residential,industrial and public service buildings during the phases of operation was simulated. The application of thistool in the inspection and environmental assessment of buildings allows the geographical scale of analysis tobe extended to a group of buildings within the area of interest and consequently to extend the limits of itsusefulness within the field of planning and environmental assessment.

© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

1.1. Environmental evaluation methods in construction

Environmental certification andmanagement tools assess buildingperformance according to certain target values for different criteria.Some of these tools are used to obtain a differential identification inthe market, whereas others are used by the authorities as a stimulusfor the adoption of good practice or as a compulsory part of thefulfilment of certain requirements [1,2]. They can assess environmen-tal aspects only, such as Building Research Environmental AssessmentMethod (BREEAM) in the UK, Leadership in Energy and Environmen-tal Design (LEED) in the USA or Comprehensive Assessment Systemfor Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE) in Japan, or toevaluate environmental, social and economic aspects such as theinternational project of Sustainable Building Tool (SbTool). Thecomplexity of these tools can vary from relatively simple oneswhich consider only a few criteria through checklists or forms, up tocomplex tools, with a very exhaustive computer-based evaluationmethod that requires quite a lot of qualitative and quantitative entrydata. They can be useful during the different design stages and duringthe operation and maintenance of the building and they may also beused as guides and support during decision-making. If the designer

+34 942 201 873.

l rights reserved.

relies on this type of tool as the design advances, the final valuationwill be more favourable since many of the criteria to be valued laterwill have been taken into account [3,4].

The focus on the life cycle of the building on which the evaluationmethods are based involves different agents in the use of tools. Duringthe design and construction phases of the project the designer,builder, inspector and regional or local authorities are the mainfigures in the inspection and environmental management process.Their responsibility finishes with environmental recognition (option-al or compulsory) of the project or at its very best, the project orconstruction when it is finally built. However, the evaluation processduring the operation and maintenance phases of the building isinfluenced by its long life. The environmental assessment depends onthe behaviour of the occupants, modifications in the original designand other uses which are given to the building. Likewise, individualrecognition with regard to respectful conduct towards the environ-ment in the use of the building stops being an objective if it doesn'tgenerate an added value (such as in those buildings which aredestined for industrial or public use) by the implementation ofinternationally recognized environmental management systems [5].

Therefore, the authors of this project consider that the environ-mental assessment of the building throughout its operative life shouldbe included in the framework of Agenda 21 [6], in which the plannersand consultants face the challenge of designing and implementingsustainable development strategies. The building is another elementin the urban subsystem which the regional system composes andwhose storage and analysis of environmental information will allowspecific objectives to be set up for different geographical and seasonal

1136 M.C. Ruiz, I. Fernández / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 1135–1143

scales. It can outline actions and specific measures to be carried out,forming part of an integral system for sustainability management.

1.2. Evaluation models based in GIS

The numerous situations of planning, strategic management andprotection of resources which need to be solved nowadays favour agrowing interest in the development of Spatial Decision SupportSystems (SDSS), capable of representing the dynamics of the systemusing geographical details which define social, economic andbiophysical conditions [7,8]. These systems are characterized by thecombination of new quantitative methods, mathematical models,Multi-Criteria Decision Methods (MCDM) and spatial analysis. MCDMis a well-known branch of decision-making techniques that logicallystructure and evaluate problems with multiple attributes andobjectives [9]. Using cartographic modelling, Geographical Informa-tion Systems (GIS) allow us to obtain maps which show the areaswhich comply with applied decision criteria [10,11]. Within the fieldof environmental management and regional and urban planning, thedevelopment and application of combined methods are increasing.Within this area, experiences vary from the development of systemsto evaluate the environmental impact caused by civil constructionprojects [12–15] to the planning and use of urban land and protectedspaces [16–20]. There are also applications which are directed atfinding activities and strategic infrastructures in economic-environ-mental planning [21–24]. A common characteristic in studied cases isthe combination of MCDM techniques and spatial analysis using GISplatforms. The methodology used depends on the complexity of thegiven problem. The structure of variables and analysis criteria, of dataand necessary spatial information and the geographical precisionrequired in the results are some of the factors that influence thedesign and construction of the final SDSS.

1.3. Aim of this project

In architecture, Multi-Criteria Decision Methods (MCDM) andGeographical Information Systems (GIS) applications have covereddifferent purposes. MCDM have been used in the development ofsupport tools in building designs and maintenance [25–27] and GISapplications have been usedmainly for informationmanagement usinginventories about a specific subject and analysis in spatial consultations[28,29]. In this project MCDM methods and GIS applications arecombined for the design and environmental management of construc-tion. A methodology to implement the multi-criteria method ofenvironmental assessment in buildings within a Geographical Informa-tion System is proposed. The international scoring system of the toolSbTool (formerly GbTool) developed in 1996 by the InternationalInitiative for a Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE), with thecollaboration of more than 20 countries through the Green BuildingChallenge process [30–32] has been used as a reference. This methodstands out because it can be applied to awide range of different types ofbuildings in different phases throughout the life cycle of the project andalso for including thedimensionsof environmental, social and economicsustainability in the analysis.

The validation of the proposed system was carried out during theoperational phase in a group of residential, industrial and publicservice buildings in a peri-urban area of Santander, in the North ofSpain. The buildings have been spatially indexed in a GeographicalInformation System and the environmental attributes come from anexternal data-base developed in Access. Their application in theinspection and environmental assessment of buildings allows thegeographical scale of analysis to be extended from an individualbuilding to a group of buildings within the specific area of interest.Consequently, this also extends its usefulness within the field ofplanning and for environmental decisions which are to be taken andcan be extended through the register and analysis of a huge amount of

geo-indexed information throughout the life cycle of the building andin particular during the operation. The application of this tool allowsus to generate digital maps, where we can distinguish the resultingenvironmental valuations and analyze actions and improvements tobe carried out in favour of a sustainable urban development.

2. Methodology

2.1. SbTool evaluation method

SbTool is a computer support system in the form of a spreadsheetin which the evaluation method developed in the Green BuildingChallenge programme has been implemented [32]. The method isstructured into seven important subjects: (A) Location, (B) Consump-tion of energy and resources, (C) Environmental loadings, (D) Indoorenvironmental quality, (E) Quality of services, (F) Economic and socialaspects, (G) Cultural and perceived aspects. Each of these subjects isdivided into different categories and each of these categories isassessed using various criteria, as shown in Fig. 1. The tool can be usedin different phases of planning, design, construction and carrying outof the project itself to assess different types of occupancy (indepen-dent housing, semi-detached housing, supermarket, hospital, labora-tory, small industry, warehouse, hotel, office, inside car park…) and inthe same project up to three different types of occupancy can bechosen. The tool is designed to activate and deactivate the differentcriteria to be assessed, depending on the phase the project is at andthe type of occupancy chosen.

The agents who take part in the use of the tool can be divided intothird party and users. The third party is the party in charge of setting upand adjusting the evaluation method, adapting it to the needs andrequirements of the area it is to be applied to and will normally beformed by regional and local authorities. They establish the criteria,reference values and weights for each type of occupancy and the phasethe project is at. The users are those in charge of the directmanagementof the tool and they introduce all the technical information of the projectand carry out the assessment. Depending on which function they carryout in the phases of the environmental assessment process of theproject, the users will be the designers, external managers and thirdparty to audit. Themain phases in the evaluationmethod in which bothparts are involved are summarized below.

2.1.1. Establishing reference values for each criteria and standardassessment

Reference values and criteria are established by the promoters ofthe tool and they can only be changed by a third party who has thepower to adapt the tool to regional or local conditions. The personacting as third party defines the objective and limits of each criteriadepending on the type of occupancy and specific regional or localdetails within the energy model (sources of energy and atmosphericemissions), town planning model (degree of development) and themodel of production management and re-use of materials (types andcharacteristics of the material, availability of material and reusedproducts, availability of material obtained in energy efficientprocesses). The criteria can be quantitative or qualitative. A numberor value is introduced for quantitative values, below which theevaluation will be negative and there will be an objective value whichgives the highest scoring. The tool builds a linear function whichstandardizes the evaluation of criteria between −1 (worst) and 5(best). The evaluation of qualitative criteria is carried out dependingon the option chosen from between four possibilities in order toobtain a score of−1 (worst practice), 0 (acceptable practice), 3 (goodpractice) and 5 (best practice).

2.1.2. Weighing up of criteria, categories and subjectsThe weights of the criteria, the lowest level in the evaluation

structure, are assigned bearing in mind the impact caused according

Fig. 1. Issues and categories in SbTool with different occupancies and project phases.

1137M.C. Ruiz, I. Fernández / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 1135–1143

to the extension of the potential effect (global=3, urban=2 andbuilding=1), the intensity of thepotential effect (direct=3, indirect=2and weak=1) and the duration of the potential effect (>50 years=3,>10 years=2, <10 years=1). The weight of each criterion within aspecific category is calculated using the Eq. (1). The weighing processwithin the levels of categories and subjects is carried out directly by thethird party and theseweights are automatically re-adjusted according tothe changes in criteria which remain active.

Pci =Eci⋅Ici⋅Dci

∑i=n

i=1Eci⋅Ici⋅Dci

ð1Þ

Pci the weight of each criteria within a specific category,n the number of criteria within this category,

Eci extension of the potential effect,Ici intensity of the potential effect,Dci duration of the potential effect.

2.1.3. Establishing the type of occupancy in the project and at whichphase the evaluation is going to be carried out: introduction of therequired data for each criteria

The user determines the type of occupancy and the phase theproject is at and the tool activates the criteria set by the third party.General details of the project, mainly connected with dimensions andposition as well as specific data, are introduced in order to carry out afurther assessment.

2.1.4. Evaluation and scoringThe evaluation of each project is carried out by means of the

weighted sum in the hierarchical system of criteria. The weighingfactors are applied once the data has been entered and the value of each

Fig. 2. Scheme of the evaluation method.

1138 M.C. Ruiz, I. Fernández / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 1135–1143

criterion has been standardized. The score in each category is the resultof the weighted addition of the criteria. Subsequently, the weights foreach category are applied and are added in order to give a result for eachsubject. The same process is repeated in the subject level to obtain anoverall evaluation of the project. Total and partial results are obtained inthe standardized scale between −1 and 5. In Fig. 2, the evaluationmethod is represented and so also is the addition of the results which isobtained in each level within the hierarchy of variables.

2.1.5. Output of resultsThe output of results is numeric and radar type for each assessment.

2.2. Implementation of an evaluationmethod in aGeographical InformationSystem

The implementation of the evaluation method has been carriedout in a GIS programme by integrating different compatible tools,

Fig. 3. Implementation methodology for the

Fig. 3. In order to create layers relating to different types of buildingin vectorial form, the software ArcGris 9.1® [33] has been used.Attributive charts have been created using the external data-baseAccess 2003 and together with the layers created in ArcGis, theysupply the geo-indexed layers with a huge quantity of associatedenvironmental information. A hierarchical structure of sustainabilitycriteria with logical relations and diffused functions evaluating theattributes associated with vectorial elements, has been built upusing the software Netweaver® [34], a development programme forexpert systems. Diffused norms are mainly defined through linearfunctions, adapting the evaluation scale of the tool SbTool (rangingbetween −1 and 5) to the evaluation scale of the Netweavertool (ranging between −1 and 1). Analyzing and checking theresults in order to make decisions is carried out in ArcGis, using themodule EMDS [35] which establishes the relationship of the modelin Netweaver with the geographical data-base. The assessmentobtained by the expert system is represented by 7° of accuracy, of

assessment model in GIS programmes.

1139M.C. Ruiz, I. Fernández / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 1135–1143

which the most unfavourable is “without any support” and the mostfavourable is “with full support”. The final result is to obtain mapswhich show the environmental performance obtained according tothe level of compliance within the different groups of criteria. Thisresult would be a tool of great use for the agents who are involved inplanning and urban environmental management. The constructionof the system showing the integration of the different tools isdisplayed in Fig. 4.

3. Validation of the proposed method

3.1. Study area

The proposed method has been validated in a peri-urban area inthe city of Santander, North Spain. The study area showing the co-existence of 129 buildings destined for residential use, 14 forindustrial use and 16 for public services, is detailed in Fig. 5.

3.2. Evaluated criteria

The proposed objective is to environmentally manage theoperation of the already existing buildings. In order to validate theSDSS, the subjects chosen from the seven subjects suggested by thetool SbTool are those related to the consumption of energy andresources (Subject B) and environmental contents (Subject C).Criteria which evaluate the functioning of the building have beenchosen from within these subjects and other criteria related to thedesign phases have been excluded. The evaluated criteria and theassigned weights, which are predetermined in the tool, are shown inTable 1.

Fig. 4. Construction of the Spatia

3.3. Results

The results presented below are based on hypothetical data whichtries to simulate conditions that are similar to a real-life situation. Inan existing application, obtaining and dealing with the necessaryinformation would be a decisive phase in the method, given that theorigin of the required data is very varied. The data comes fromcompanies which supply public services (e.g. water consumption,electric energy and heating), from administrative licenses the ownersapply for in order to carry out project modifications which affect thecriteria to be evaluated (e.g. provision of on-site renewable energysystems, installations for the treatment of affluents and the retentionof rainwater…) or of calculations which have been carried out toobtain data, such as the consumption of non-renewable primaryenergy or environmental contents. Nevertheless, in this section wewould like to demonstrate the potential and added value that GISsystems add to the already existing tools of sustainability manage-ment within construction. The implementation of the spatialcomponent in the proposed methodology could form part of morecomplex decision programmes and systems in urban and regionalplanning.

The results are obtained for each type of construction, followingthe structure of the added criteria in subjects. In Fig. 6, the resultsobtained for construction in residential use are presented and in thestudy area there are collective buildings (top right-hand) andindividual buildings (bottom left-hand). The assessment of energyconsumption and resources in those buildings destined for collectivebuildings offers moderately positive results, which can be furtherimproved, Fig. 6b. This data simulates an absence of renewable energyand has been compensated by the optimum use of water, due to the

l Decision Support System.

Fig. 5. Ortho-photo of the analyzed area.

1140 M.C. Ruiz, I. Fernández / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 1135–1143

lack of green areas to be watered. In the assessment of single familybuildings, besides the absence of renewable energy installations, thehigh consumption of water used to water the garden area contributesdecisively to a negative assessment in this category of variables. Theassessment of criteria connected with the environmental contents ismoderately positive, Fig. 6c. In this case, a high consumption ofheating energy has been suggested, contributing significantly to theemission of contaminants in the atmosphere, although it is compen-

Table 1Evaluated criteria and weights.

Evaluated criteria Weights

B. Energy and resource consumptionB1. Total life cycle non-renewable energyB1.2. Annual non-renewable primary energy used for facilityoperations

B2. Electrical peak demand for facility operationsB3. Renewable energyB3.1. Use of off-site energy that is generated fromrenewable sourcesB3.2. Provision of on-site renewable energy systemsB5. Potable waterB5.1. Use of potable water for site irrigationB5.2. Use of potable water for occupancy needs

0.450.401

0.120.240.5

0.50.240.50.5

C. Environmental loadingsC1. Greenhouse gas emissionsC1.2. Annual GHG emissions from all energy used for facilityoperationsC2. Other atmospheric emissionsC2.1. Emissions of ozone-depleting substances duringfacility operationsC2.2. Emissions of acidifying emissions during facility operationsC3. Solid wastesC3.2. Solid waste resulting from facility operationsC4. Rainwater, stormwater and wastewaterC.4.1. Liquid effluents from facility operations sent off the siteC.4.2. Retention of rainwater for later re-useC.4.3. Untreated stormwater retained on the siteC5. Impacts on siteC5.3. Changes in biodiversity on the siteC5.5. Minimizing danger of hazardous waste on site

0.550.2041

0.1840.70

0.300.12210.1840.400.200.400.3060.820.18

sated by the rest of the positive impacts. The overall assessment ismoderately positive, although it could be improved by means of agradual implementation of primary energy originating from renew-able sources andmeasures which favour a more efficient use of water.

In Fig. 7, the results obtained for construction in light industrial useare presented. The companies are mainly located in an industrial areaand their activities mainly include logistics, carpentries or the auto-motive industry. The assessment of energy consumption and resourcesin the buildings presents moderate support, Fig. 7b. The industrial areahas been considered as having a high level of self-sufficiency in theconsumption of primary energy coming from renewable energy and itconsumes hardly any water, due to the planning of an area lacking ingreen areas. Although the absence of green areas promotes savingwaterin the operational phases, the assessment of other criteria in the design,such as the loss of bio-diversity,would be inadequate. One agreement tobe reached would be to design a balanced distribution between greenareas and building areas and to implement measures to reuse drinkingwater and rainwater for the operational phase. In Fig. 7c, we can see themoderately positive assessment for the group of criteria connectedwithenvironmental contents. The reduction of emissions in the atmosphereand the assigned weights to these contribute significantly in this partialassessment, in spite of the fact that the industrial area presents lowsupport with regard to the criteria in generating urban solid residuesand storage and reuse of water. In an environmental assessmentprocess, we must bear in mind the aspects that are highlighted in orderto guarantee continuous improvement and to obtainmaximum scoring.

In Fig. 8, the results obtained for construction in public services arepresented. In this typology we can see the main uses for social servicesand leisure time, such as children's nursery schools or day centres forretired people. This type of housing or occupancy stands out in itsdemand in the consumption of electric energy from non-renewablesources, which has an important figure of 40% over the rest of theaspects, giving rise to a negative environmental impact in theconsumption of energy and resources, Fig. 8b. This has also suggesteda high energetic demand in heating and air-conditioning, resulting in anegative influence on atmospheric emissions. This impact is compen-sated by the positive contribution of the rest of the criteria in theenvironmental contentswhichmake the partial resultmoderate, Fig. 8c.The overall result obtained bymeans of theweighted sum in both of thepartial assessments has a predominantly negative impact, Fig. 8a.

Fig. 6. Results of the environmental assessment in residential buildings. a) Overall environmental assessment; b) Evaluation of criteria referring to the consumption of energy andresources; c) Evaluation of criteria referring to environmental contents.

1141M.C. Ruiz, I. Fernández / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 1135–1143

The environmental assessment together with the spatial compo-nent allows the overall and partial results to be visualized quickly. Thehierarchical structure allows us to study in depth the criteria which donot reach the desired objectives and also to prioritize what action isnecessary to improve the final qualification. In addition, the use ofspatial analysis tools contained in the GIS systems could contribute

Fig. 7. Results of the environmental assessment in industrial buildings. a) Overall environmresources; c) Evaluation of criteria referring to environmental contents.

significantly in supporting improvement proposals. To give just oneexample; in a negative assessment in the use of off-site renewableenergy, we could locate the nearest connection points which exist inthe affected area using criteria of distance in order to make atechnical–economical assessment of the alternatives. The negativeassessment could also refer to taking advantage of rainwater and

ental assessment; b) Evaluation of criteria referring to the consumption of energy and

Fig. 8. Results of the environmental assessment in public service buildings. a) Overall environmental assessment; b) Evaluation of criteria referring to the consumption of energy andresources; c) Evaluation of criteria referring to environmental contents.

1142 M.C. Ruiz, I. Fernández / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 1135–1143

storms in different groups of buildings which are in certain proximity,thus allowing us to create common management alternatives whichcould take advantage of the economy within the scale.

3.4. Advantages of the proposed method

The implementation of the proposedmethod offers an opportunityfor improvement and operating capacity for the tools which arecurrently developed. Conventional evaluation methods are based onthe use of complex tools in multi-criteria evaluations. The correctinput of data and parameters of the building requires deep knowledgein the design and construction of each tool. This disadvantage,together with less friendly interfaces needs extra time and effort fromthe user for an efficient application in the process of design andmanagement. The essential improvements of the proposed methodare the geo-index of the building and the modularity of the system.The first one allows the new project or constructed building, thelocation of which is fundamental for analyzing its integration in theenvironment, to be spatially indexed. On the other hand, themodularity of the system allows the tasks in the evaluation processto be differentiated using different combined tools and throughcommercial use. In this way, the implementation of the evaluationmethod in the environment of an expert system allows the model tobe adapted to new structures, criteria and weighing factors in eachregional or local area. Entering data and parameters in a data-basemakes thework remarkably easier for the user. The final integration ofboth tools in a GIS platform represents a powerful managementsystem of the environment and urban information of the building.

Besides, the spatial component of the system establishes extend-ing the scale of application from an individual analysis of the buildingto the evaluation of an area, city or region which it forms part of. Thischange in the scale allows the building to be considered as anotherelement in the urban sub-system and therefore makes new applica-tions in the field of regional and urban planning more feasible. Theproposed SDSS allows environmental information to be edited, stored,

transformed, spatially analyzed and visualized in order to establishobjectives and make decisions in different geographical and timescales. The diagnosis and actions to be carried out could form part ofan integral system in sustainability management.

4. Conclusions

The current tools used for the inspection and environmentalmanagement of buildings are based on a multi-criteria evaluationapplied to the project or previously constructed building. The effectiveuse of management tools requires a scale of application which goesfurther than the building itself. The implementation of the spatialdimension of the building by means of GIS programmes allows a hugeamount of information to be managed and it also extends the use ofalready existing tools in the field of planning and regional and urbandecision-making, independently of their complexity. The intersectionof the two fields of knowledge, multi-criteria evaluation methodswhich support the design and manage the sustainability in construc-tion on the one hand and environmental information on the other,leads to the design and construction of the Spatial Design SupportSystem (SDSS) presented in this project. The hybrid of tools formed bya development environment for expert systems in Netweaver and theEMDS-ArcGIS platform allows enquiries to be carried out fromdifferent criteria in groups of variables. This makes it easier forplanners and consultants to establish objectives and specific actionsintegrated within a model of sustainable development divided intobuilding-area-region. Moreover, the use of an expert system based onrules of diffuse logic admits the implementation, in a relatively simpleform, of the evaluation method SbTool. The modular character of thesystem carries great flexibility in its use and is an open system, able toadapt the structure of variables and evaluation criteria to thecharacteristics and politics of each region.

It can thus be concluded that this project contributes to thedevelopment of a new line of re-design and application of the currenttools for their integration in sustainability management systems. The

1143M.C. Ruiz, I. Fernández / Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 1135–1143

proposed system can cover different purposes according to how it isapplied within the actual building scale or in the extended possibilityof area-city. In the building scale, it should be implemented in thelegal proceedings of new projects and reforms, being the startingpoint for its application in urban environmental planning. In bothcases, it is necessary to define the protocol of action and the interestedparties for an effective use of the system. Their adaptation to a realenvironment, in regional or local administration, requires thedevelopment of programmes which are interconnected to surround-ing servers with data-bases which contain the required attributes. Thecentralization of the information will then be the main challenge towhich the viability of the tool should be confronted. The creation ofintegrated working environments which share information will makethe development of systems for inspection and environmentalplanning within the building sector possible throughout its life cycle.

References

[1] R.J. Cole, Building environmental assessment methods: clarifying intentions,Building Research and Information 27 (4/5) (1999) 230–246.

[2] R.J. Cole, Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions androles, Building Research and Information 35 (5) (2005) 455–467.

[3] W. Trusty, S. Horst, LCA tools around the world, Building Design&Construction,ABI/INFORM Global, 2005, pp. 12–15.

[4] K.C. Grace, Sustainable construction—the role of environmental assessment tools,Journal of Environmental Management 86 (2008) 451–464.

[5] ISO 14001:2004, Environmental Management Systems—Requirements withGuidance for Use, Standard, 2004.

[6] Aalborg Charter, First Conference on Sustainable Cities and Towns, 1994 Aalborg(Denmark).

[7] Y. Reich, A. Kapeliuk, A framework for organizing the space of decision problemswith application to solving subjective, context-dependent problems, DecisionSupport Systems 41 (2005) 1–19.

[8] C. Carlsson, E. Turban, DSS: directions for the next decade, Decision SupportSystems 33 (2002) 105–110.

[9] M. Zeleny, Multiple Criteria Decision Making, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982.[10] J. Malczewski, GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New

York, 1999.[11] M.J. Hill, R. Braaten, S.M. Veitch, B.G. Lees, S. Sharma, Multi-criteria decision

analysis in spatial decision support: the ASSESS analytic hierarchy process and therole of quantitative methods and spatially explicit analysis, EnvironmentalModelling & Software 20 (2005) 955–976.

[12] L.A. Bohorquez-Tapia, L. Juárez, G. Cruz-Bello, Integrating fuzzy logic, optimiza-tion, and GIS for ecological impact assessments, Environmental Management 30(2002) 418–433.

[13] P. Klungboonkrong, M.A.P. Taylor, A microcomputer-based system for multi-criteria environmental impacts evaluation of urban road networks, Computer,Environment and Urban Systems 22 (1998) 425–446.

[14] J. Hernández, L. García, F. Ayuga, Assessment of the visual impact made on thelandscape by new buildings: a methodology for site selection, Landscape andUrban Planning 68 (2004) 15–28.

[15] J.M. De Paz, J. Sánchez, F. Visconti, Combined use of GIS and environmentalindicators for assessment of chemical, physical and biological soil degradation in aSpanish Mediterranean region, Journal of Environmental Management 79 (2)(2006) 150–162.

[16] F.C. Dai, C.F. Lee, X.H. Zhang, GIS-based geo-environmental evaluation for urbanland-use planning: a case study, Engineering Geology 61 (2001) 257–271.

[17] K. Schotten, R. Goetgeluk, M. Hilferink, P. Rietveld, H. Scholten, Residentialconstruction, land use and the environment. Simulations for the Netherlandsusing a GIS-based land use model, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 6(2001) 133–143.

[18] L.A. Bohorquez-Tapia, S. Diaz-Mondragón, E. Ezcurra, GIS-based approach forparticipatory decision making and land suitability assessment, InternationalJournal of Geographical Information Science 15 (2001) 129–151.

[19] H. Herbst, V. Herbst, The development of an evaluation method using a geographicinformation system to determine the importance of wasteland sites as urbanwildlife areas, Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (1/2) (2006) 178–195.

[20] R. Store, J. Kangas, Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expertknowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modelling, Landscape and UrbanPlanning 55 (2001) 79–93.

[21] V. Maniezzo, I. Mendes, M. Paruccini, Decision support for sitting problems,Decision Support Systems 23 (1998) 273–284.

[22] H. Kallali, M. Anane, S. Jellali, J. Tarhouni, GIS-based multi-criteria analysis forpotential wastewater aquifer recharge sites, Desalination 215 (2007) 111–119.

[23] N. Chang, G. Parvathinathan, J.B. Breeden, Combining GIS with fuzzy multicriteriadecision-making for landfill sitting in a fast-growing urban region, Journal ofEnvironmental Management 87 (2008) 139–153.

[24] G. Higgs, R. Berry, D. Kidner, M. Langford, Using IT approaches to promote publicparticipation in renewable energy planning: prospects and challenges, Land UsePolicy 25 (2008) 596–607.

[25] V.I. Soebarto, T.J. Williamson, Multi-criteria assessment of building performance:theory and implementation, Building and Environment 36 (2001) 681–690.

[26] N.A. D'Cruz, A.D. Radford, A multicriteria model for building performance anddesign, Building and Environment 22 (1987) 167–179.

[27] T. Vilutiene, E.K. Zavadskas, The application of multi-criteria analysis to decisionsupport for the facility management of a residential district, Journal of CivilEngineering and Management 9 (2003) 241–252.

[28] Y. Etzion, B.A. Portnov, E. Erell, I. Meir, D. Pearlmutter, An open GIS framework forrecording and analysing post-occupancy changes in residential buildings — aclimate-related case study, Building and Environment 36 (2001) 1075–1090.

[29] M. Ford, R. Griffiths, L. Watson, The Sandford inventory of earth buildingsconstructed using a GIS, Building and Environment 40 (2005) 964–972.

[30] N. Larsson, Green Building Challenge '98: international strategic considerations,Building Research and Information 26 (2) (1998) 118–121.

[31] N.K. Larsson, R.J. Cole, Green Building Challenge: the development of an idea,Building Research and Information 29 (5) (2001) 336–345.

[32] Green Building Challenge, GBC'98-2005 Process overview, 2008, http://greenbuilding.ca/iisbe/gbc2k5/gbc2k5-start.htm.

[33] ESRI, Environmental Systems Research Institute, ArcGis v9.1, 1997, http://www.esri-es.com/.

[34] Rules of Thumb, NetWeaver Developer, 1987, http://rules-of-thumb.com/.[35] Redlands Institute, EMDS v3.1. Ecosystem Management Decision Support, 2004,

http://www.institute.redlands.edu/emds/index.htm.