A Review of Multicriteria Assessment Techniques Applied to Sustainable Infrastructure Design

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.contributor.affiliationDepartamento de Ingeniería de la Construcción y de Proyectos de Ingeniería Civil
dc.contributor.affiliationEscuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería de Caminos, Canales y Puertos
dc.contributor.affiliationInstituto Universitario de Investigación de Ciencia y Tecnología del Hormigón
dc.contributor.authorNavarro -Martinez, Ignacio Javier
dc.contributor.authorYepes, V.
dc.contributor.authorMartí Albiñana, José Vicente
dc.contributor.funderAgencia Estatal de Investigaciónes_ES
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-22T21:01:51Z
dc.date.available2020-02-22T21:01:51Z
dc.date.issued2019es_ES
dc.description.abstract[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.en_EN
dc.description.accrualMethodSes_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitationNavarro, 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/10.1155/2019/6134803es_ES
dc.description.issue6134803es_ES
dc.description.referencesKyriacou, 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.2018.11.017es_ES
dc.description.referencesGarcía-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/s1679-78252014000700007es_ES
dc.description.referencesYepes, 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.2017.02.006es_ES
dc.description.referencesFrangopol, 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:10.1080/15732471003594427es_ES
dc.description.referencesSafi, 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.1943-5592.0000673es_ES
dc.description.referencesNavarro, 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.2018.06.110es_ES
dc.description.referencesZhang, 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/s11367-016-1035-7es_ES
dc.description.referencesGarcía-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.2018.08.177es_ES
dc.description.referencesVan 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.2014.01.033es_ES
dc.description.referencesBraga, 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.2017.06.057es_ES
dc.description.referencesHossain, 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/s11367-017-1373-0es_ES
dc.description.referencesDong, 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/s11367-015-0908-5es_ES
dc.description.referencesSierra, 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.2017.12.140es_ES
dc.description.referencesMontalbán-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.2018.07.083es_ES
dc.description.referencesZamarrón-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.2017.01.092es_ES
dc.description.referencesSierra, 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.2018.03.022es_ES
dc.description.referencesReza, 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.2010.11.041es_ES
dc.description.referencesPons, 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.2013.09.009es_ES
dc.description.referencesMosalam, 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.2018.03.005es_ES
dc.description.referencesPerini, 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.2013.08.012es_ES
dc.description.referencesGilani, 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.2017.05.006es_ES
dc.description.referencesMoussavi 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.2017.05.016es_ES
dc.description.referencesGuzmán-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.2018.05.063es_ES
dc.description.referencesHashemkhani 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.2016.11.002es_ES
dc.description.referencesInvidiata, 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.2018.04.041es_ES
dc.description.referencesKamali, 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.2018.04.019es_ES
dc.description.referencesPons, 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.2012.01.007es_ES
dc.description.referencesAkadiri, 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.2012.10.004es_ES
dc.description.referencesMotuzienė, 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.2015.08.103es_ES
dc.description.referencesSamani, 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.2015.04.012es_ES
dc.description.referencesAL-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/s10098-016-1168-1es_ES
dc.description.referencesALwaer, 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.2009.08.019es_ES
dc.description.referencesYu, 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.368-373.3829es_ES
dc.description.referencesDrejeris, R., & Kavolynas, A. (2014). Multi-criteria Evaluation of Building Sustainability Behavior. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, 502-511. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.894es_ES
dc.description.referencesIGNATIUS, 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:10.3846/13923730.2015.1120772es_ES
dc.description.referencesAmoozad 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/su10051626es_ES
dc.description.referencesSan-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.2009.08.012es_ES
dc.description.referencesCuadrado, 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:10.1155/2015/157129es_ES
dc.description.referencesCuadrado, 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:10.1080/10286608.2016.1148143es_ES
dc.description.referencesHeravi, 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.2016.10.168es_ES
dc.description.referencesFormisano, 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.2015.06.016es_ES
dc.description.referencesTerracciano, 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:10.1080/19648189.2014.974832es_ES
dc.description.referencesZavadskas, 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.2005.08.001es_ES
dc.description.referencesHosseini, 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.1943-7862.0001137es_ES
dc.description.referencesMalekly, 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.2009.12.024es_ES
dc.description.referencesGervásio, 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.2012.01.032es_ES
dc.description.referencesBalali, 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:10.3141/2431-11es_ES
dc.description.referencesJakiel, 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.2014.12.039es_ES
dc.description.referencesYepes, 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.2015.05.001es_ES
dc.description.referencesKripka, M., Yepes, V., & Milani, C. (2019). Selection of Sustainable Short-Span Bridge Design in Brazil. Sustainability, 11(5), 1307. doi:10.3390/su11051307es_ES
dc.description.referencesWang, 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.2007.09.002es_ES
dc.description.referencesAbu 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:10.1080/01446190802071190es_ES
dc.description.referencesChen, 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.2013.10.017es_ES
dc.description.referencesBegić, 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.2007.02.006es_ES
dc.description.referencesCartelle 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.2015.05.110es_ES
dc.description.referencesKlein, 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.2015.01.007es_ES
dc.description.referencesMontajabiha, 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-zes_ES
dc.description.referencesFetanat, 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.2015.02.005es_ES
dc.description.referencesMedina-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.2017.11.044es_ES
dc.description.referencesGumus, 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.2016.06.006es_ES
dc.description.referencesFUENTE, 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:10.3846/13923730.2015.1023347es_ES
dc.description.referencesAfshar, 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-xes_ES
dc.description.referencesSun, 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:10.1155/2013/680798es_ES
dc.description.referencesMartin, 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.2006.06.019es_ES
dc.description.referencesDong, 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-zes_ES
dc.description.referencesTahmasebi 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/s11269-018-1960-2es_ES
dc.description.referencesDe 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.2015.07.002es_ES
dc.description.referencesOnu, 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/s11269-017-1636-3es_ES
dc.description.referencesChhipi-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:10.2175/106143016x14798353399494es_ES
dc.description.referencesKucukvar, 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.2013.12.009es_ES
dc.description.referencesJato-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.2014.05.008es_ES
dc.description.referencesTorres-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:10.3141/2523-07es_ES
dc.description.referencesSantos, 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.2018.08.308es_ES
dc.description.referencesOses, 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.1943-5444.0000406es_ES
dc.description.referencesAsgari, 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.2015.01.014es_ES
dc.description.referencesBanias, 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.2010.04.016es_ES
dc.description.referencesRochikashvili, 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.2016.09.167es_ES
dc.description.referencesUgwu, 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.2005.10.018es_ES
dc.description.referencesReyes, 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.2013.08.023es_ES
dc.description.referencesDobrovolskienė, 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/su8010014es_ES
dc.description.referencesMarzouk, 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.2013.10.015es_ES
dc.description.referencesNavarro, 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.2018.05.003es_ES
dc.description.referencesBrans, J. P., & Vincke, P. (1985). Note—A Preference Ranking Organisation Method. Management Science, 31(6), 647-656. doi:10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647es_ES
dc.description.referencesKabir, 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:10.1080/15732479.2013.795978es_ES
dc.description.referencesPodvezko, V. (2011). The Comparative Analysis of MCDA Methods SAW and COPRAS. Engineering Economics, 22(2). doi:10.5755/j01.ee.22.2.310es_ES
dc.description.referencesKaya, 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.4016es_ES
dc.description.referencesMardani, A., Jusoh, A., MD Nor, K., Khalifah, Z., Zakwan, N., & Valipour, A. (2015). Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications – a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 28(1), 516-571. doi:10.1080/1331677x.2015.1075139es_ES
dc.description.referencesSitorus, F., Cilliers, J. J., & Brito-Parada, P. R. (2019). Multi-criteria decision making for the choice problem in mining and mineral processing: Applications and trends. Expert Systems with Applications, 121, 393-417. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.001es_ES
dc.description.referencesIlgin, M. A., Gupta, S. M., & Battaïa, O. (2015). Use of MCDM techniques in environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery: State of the art. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 37, 746-758. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.04.010es_ES
dc.description.referencesKhan, S. A., Chaabane, A., & Dweiri, F. T. (2018). Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods Application in Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Multi-Criteria Methods and Techniques Applied to Supply Chain Management. doi:10.5772/intechopen.74067es_ES
dc.description.referencesNoryani, M., Sapuan, S. M., & Mastura, M. T. (2018). Multi-criteria decision-making tools for material selection of natural fibre composites: A review. JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND SCIENCES, 12(1), 3330-3353. doi:10.15282/jmes.12.1.2018.5.0299es_ES
dc.description.referencesScholten, L., Schuwirth, N., Reichert, P., & Lienert, J. (2015). Tackling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis – An application to water supply infrastructure planning. European Journal of Operational Research, 242(1), 243-260. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2014.09.044es_ES
dc.description.referencesZadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338-353. doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(65)90241-xes_ES
dc.description.referencesAtanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20(1), 87-96. doi:10.1016/s0165-0114(86)80034-3es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipThe authors acknowledge the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, along with FEDER funding (Project no. BIA2017-85098-R).es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin16es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio1es_ES
dc.description.volume2019es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1155/2019/6134803es_ES
dc.identifier.issn1687-8086es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttps://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/137595
dc.languageIngléses_ES
dc.publisherHindawi Limitedes_ES
dc.relation.ispartofAdvances in Civil Engineeringes_ES
dc.relation.pasarelaS\389671es_ES
dc.relation.projectIDinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/AEI/Plan Estatal de Investigación Científica y Técnica y de Innovación 2013-2016/BIA2017-85098-R/ES/DISEÑO Y MANTENIMIENTO OPTIMO ROBUSTO Y BASADO EN FIABILIDAD DE PUENTES E INFRAESTRUCTURAS VIARIAS DE ALTA EFICIENCIA SOCIAL Y MEDIOAMBIENTAL BAJO PRESUPUESTOS RESTRICTIVOS/es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6134803es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.226es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.11.017es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1590/s1679-78252014000700007es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.acme.2017.02.006es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/15732471003594427es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000673es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.110es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s11367-016-1035-7es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.177es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.01.033es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.057es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s11367-017-1373-0es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s11367-015-0908-5es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.140es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.083es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.092es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.022es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.041es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.009es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.strusafe.2018.03.005es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.08.012es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.egypro.2017.05.006es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.05.016es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.05.063es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.aej.2016.11.002es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.041es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.019es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.01.007es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.autcon.2012.10.004es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.103es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.04.012es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s10098-016-1168-1es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.019es_ES
dc.relation.references10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.368-373.3829es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.894es_ES
dc.relation.references10.3846/13923730.2015.1120772es_ES
dc.relation.references10.3390/su10051626es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.012es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1155/2015/157129es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/10286608.2016.1148143es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.168es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.compstruc.2015.06.016es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/19648189.2014.974832es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.08.001es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/1648715X.2004.9637512es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001137es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.eswa.2009.12.024es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.032es_ES
dc.relation.references10.3141/2431-11es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.eswa.2014.12.039es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.acme.2015.05.001es_ES
dc.relation.references10.3390/su11051307es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.cie.2007.09.002es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/01446190802071190es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/14488353.2015.1092642es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/1359-8368(95)00030-5es_ES
dc.relation.references10.3390/app7020168es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.apm.2013.10.017es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.energy.2007.02.006es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.energy.2008.01.013es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.energy.2010.02.051es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.110es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.007es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s10726-015-9440-zes_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.173es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.02.005es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.cherd.2017.11.044es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.spc.2016.06.006es_ES
dc.relation.references10.3846/13923730.2015.1023347es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.egypro.2017.05.005es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s11269-010-9713-xes_ES
dc.relation.references10.1155/2013/680798es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.ejor.2006.06.019es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s11783-008-0014-zes_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s11269-018-1960-2es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.002es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/s0011-9164(01)00168-0es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1061/(asce)0733-9496(2005)131:4(326)es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s11269-017-1636-3es_ES
dc.relation.references10.2175/106143016x14798353399494es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.autcon.2013.12.009es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.eswa.2014.05.008es_ES
dc.relation.references10.3141/2523-07es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.308es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000406es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.tust.2016.10.008es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.tre.2015.01.014es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.04.016es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.167es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.10.018es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.ssci.2013.08.023es_ES
dc.relation.references10.3390/su8010014es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.015es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.eiar.2018.05.003es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647es_ES
dc.relation.references10.3390/su8121295es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.08.004es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/15732479.2013.795978es_ES
dc.relation.references10.5755/j01.ee.22.2.310es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1002/er.4016es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/1331677x.2015.1075139es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.001es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.04.010es_ES
dc.relation.references10.5772/intechopen.74067es_ES
dc.relation.references10.15282/jmes.12.1.2018.5.0299es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/j.ejor.2014.09.044es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/s0019-9958(65)90241-xes_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/s0165-0114(86)80034-3es_ES
dc.rightsReconocimiento (by)es_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsAbiertoes_ES
dc.subjectInfrastructurees_ES
dc.subjectDecision makinges_ES
dc.subjectSustainabilityes_ES
dc.subjectDesignes_ES
dc.subject.classificationINGENIERIA DE LA CONSTRUCCIONes_ES
dc.titleA Review of Multicriteria Assessment Techniques Applied to Sustainable Infrastructure Designes_ES
dc.typeArtículoes_ES
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiones_ES
dspace.entity.typePublication
person.identifier377730
person.identifier1831
person.identifier1013
person.identifier.orcid0000-0001-5488-6001
person.identifier.orcid0000-0002-2435-4095
relation.isAuthorOfPublication8fe955cc-ec74-4a09-8e27-c2e36b9414c7
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationa22f18c1-15c7-4ce6-9182-e1fe67261b12
relation.isAuthorOfPublication4c79754c-2002-490a-9a8e-96719b612e5e
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery8fe955cc-ec74-4a09-8e27-c2e36b9414c7
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication0d87f640-7be6-4adb-b5cd-9eb294798a72
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationa4b47ff5-95f4-430f-a1a3-541cb8eaa9b7
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication4076efbf-6ee0-4436-a575-d70919e80f7a
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery0d87f640-7be6-4adb-b5cd-9eb294798a72
upv.uuid4c8d7ad1-4e1b-4ede-9c77-13e33d5add7fes_ES

Archivos

Bloque original

Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura
Nombre:
Navarro;Yepes;Martí - A Review of Multicriteria Assessment Techniques Applied to Sustainable Infr....pdf
Tamaño:
2.28 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Versión editorial
[object Object] Descargar

Colecciones

Artículos, conferencias, monografías