Value-based decision making in the pre-design stage of sustainable building renovation projects – exploring two methods for weighting criteria

References

• Andresen I. 2000. A multi-criteria decision-making method for solar building design. Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Arroyo P, Fuenzalida C, Albert A, Hallowell MR. 2016. Collaborating in decision making of sustainable building design: an experimental study comparing CBA and WRC methods. Energy Build. 128:132–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arroyo P, Tommelein ID, Ballard G. 2012. Deciding a sustainable alternative by “choosing by advantages” in the AEC industry. In: 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. San Diego, CA; p. 41–50.
   Google Scholar
• Arroyo P, Tommelein ID, Ballard G. 2014a. Comparing weighting rating and calculating vs. choosing by advantages to make design choices. In: 22nd Annu Conf Int Gr Lean Constr Underst Improv Proj Based Prod. IGLC 2014. The International Group for Lean Construction; p. 401–412.
   Google Scholar
• Arroyo P, Tommelein ID, Ballard G. 2014b. Comparing AHP and CBA as decision methods to resolve the choosing problem in detailed design. J Constr Eng Manag. 141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balcomb JD, Curtner A. 2000. Multi-criteria decision-making process for buildings. In: 35th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference Exhibit; p. 528–535.
   Google Scholar
• Belton V, Stewart TJ. 2002. Muliple criteria decision analysis, an integrated approach. Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Brundtland GH. 1987. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards W, Barron FH. 1994. SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 60(3):306–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fong PS-W, Choi SK-Y. 2000. Final contractor selection using the analytical hierarchy process. Constr Manag Econ. 18(5):547–557.
   Google Scholar
• Gade AN, Jensen RL, Larsen TS, Nissen SB. 2018a. Goal setting in sustainable building renovation – early prototype design and testing of a new decision support tool. International Design Conference – Des 2018. p. 305–314.
   Google Scholar
• Gade AN, Larsen TS, Nissen SB, Jensen RL. 2018b. REDIS: a value-based decision support tool for renovation of building portfolios. Build Environ. 142:107–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goepel K. 2017. Online AHP System [Internet]. [cited 2017 Sept 20]. Available from: http://bpmsg.com/academic/ahp.php
   Google Scholar
• Jato-Espino D, Castillo-Lopez E, Rodriguez-Hernandez J, Canteras-Jordana JC. 2014. A review of application of multi-criteria decision making methods in construction. Autom Constr. 45:151–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juan Y-K. 2009. A hybrid approach using data envelopment analysis and case-based reasoning for housing refurbishment contractors selection and performance improvement. Expert Syst Appl. 36(3):5702–5710.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juan Y-K, Shih S-G, Perng Y-H. 2006. Decision support for housing customization: a hybrid approach using case-based reasoning and genetic algorithm. Expert Syst Appl. 31(1):83–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Raiffa H. 1994. Decisions with multiple objectives – preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kommune A. 2015. Udviklings- og investeringsplaner [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 11]. Available from: http://www.aalborg.dk/skole-og-uddannelse/skole/udviklings-og-investeringsplaner
   Google Scholar
• Kumar A, Sah B, Singh AR, Deng Y, He X, Kumar P, Bansal RC. 2017. A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 69:596–609.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee HW, Tommelein ID, Ballard G. 2010. Lean design management in an infrastructure design-build project: a case study. In: Proceedings of IGLC-18. Tech Haifa, Israel; p. 113–122.
   Google Scholar
• Medineckiene M, Zavadskas EK, Björk F, Turskis Z. 2015. Multi-criteria decision-making system for sustainable building assessment/certification. Arch Civil Mech Eng. 15(1):11–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen AN, Jensen RL, Larsen TS, Nissen SB. 2016. Early stage decision support for sustainable building renovation – a review. Build Environ. 103:165–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen AN, Larsen TS, Jensen RL, Nissen SB. 2017. Decision-making in the pre-design stage of sustainable building renovation projects. World Sustainable Built Environment Conference 2017 Hong Kong. Hong Kong. p. 1967–1972.
   Google Scholar
• Parrish K, Tommelein I. 2009. Making design decisions using choosing by advantages. In: Proceedings of 17th Annual Conference of the Internatinal Group for Lean Construction. Taipei, Taiwan, Province of China. p. 501–510.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty TL. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Education. 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty TL. 1990. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res. 48(1):9–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siskos E, Tsotsolas N. 2015. Elicitation of criteria importance weights through the Simos method: a robustness concern. Eur J Oper Res. 246(2):543–553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suhr J. 1999. The choosing by advantages decision making system. Westport: Quorum Books.
   Google Scholar
• Wang HJ, Zeng ZT. 2010. A multi-objective decision-making process for reuse selection of historic buildings. Expert Syst Appl. 37(2):1241–1249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang JJ, Jing YY, Zhang CF, Zhao JH. 2009. Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 13(9):2263–2278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar